Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2546C000B for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A029860791 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOWD-GLDZNKV for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:05:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87BAE60782 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 13OK5bXA018973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 16:05:37 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id t21so1314933iob.2 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FvZcj6PuNqUqmLYLf7TOBPm9wQg1IedW2NssOt5c09xy+DHUT 6ZzcWy/t+E/W7hNWPSDxyJpgRLiGjhNng0k0Rog= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwTJ9H7jAAAN1iw5kiR6GaO/RjowlhP3IrW40CbB/O9wkV51/JypYoYbZvOR0pkP/4uqUFVZWEwe6isNwpVIA= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7b45:: with SMTP id m5mr8099798iop.97.1619294737109; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210423181550.xri2ravlwfe3vpc6@ganymede> In-Reply-To: <20210423181550.xri2ravlwfe3vpc6@ganymede> From: Jeremy Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:05:25 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "David A. Harding" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097972105c0bd6f22" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Motivating Address type for OP_RETURN X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:05:42 -0000 --00000000000097972105c0bd6f22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Inline responses On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 11:18 AM David A. Harding wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 08:46:07AM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > > > * > Script is technically "too wide" a type as what I really want is to > > only return coins with known output types. I don't understand this > concern. If script is too wide a type, then OP_RETURN being a scriptPubKey > of arbitrary length up to almost a million bytes is also going to be too > wide, right?* > I meant the type itself is too wide, not the length of the value. As in Script can represent things we know nothing about. There's a bit of leaky abstraction since the values self describe the type they are. For addresses it's just representations IMO for the standard output types one might expect from standard software. Btw: According to... Oh wait... You? https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35878/is-there-a-maximum-size-of-a-scriptsig-scriptpubkey the max size is 10k bytes. Still probably too big for an address, but I'd be ok with making op_return addresses only defined for a small size (e.g. 128 bytes?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > 1) Should it be human readable & checksummed or encoded? It should > absolutely not be human readable in the sense of being meaningful to > humans. We've seen in the past that tools and sites that display OP_RETURN > data as ASCII encourage people to put text in the block chain that is > offensive and illegal. This puts people running nodes at risk of social > and legal intervention. Bitcoin's premissionless nature means we can't > stop people from creating such problems, but we can lower the risk by > having our tools default to meaningless representations of OP_RETURN data. > The best advice I've seen is to display OP_RETURN data in hex. It's still > possible to say things like "dead beef" with that, but significant abuse is > hard. This will, of course, make even 80 byte OP_RETURN "addresses" very > long.* > Is it possible/easy to, say, using bech32m make an inappropriate message in the address? You'd have to write the message, then see what it decodes to without checking, and then re encode? I guess this is worse than hex? But it seems this is a general thing... If you wanted an inappropriate message you could therefore just use bech32m addressed outputs. > > > > > > * 2) Should it have a fixed length of max 40-80 bytes or should we support > > arbitrary length strings? If it doesn't support the fell range, > somebody's just going to complain later and there will have to be a v2 > address.* > So 10,000 bytes? Or do we care to represent outputs that would be consensus invalid? > > > > > > > > > > > > * > 3) Should it be possible (i.e., from core) to pay into such an > OP_RETURN or > should we categorize OP_RETURNS as a non-payable address > type (and just use > it for parsing blockdata) I don't think including > arbitrary data in the block chain is something that's currently useful for > typical end users, and applications that want to use OP_RETURN with Bitcoin > Core can already call create(psbt|rawtransaction) with the `data` field, so > I'd be mildly opposed in including such a feature in Bitcoin Core's > wallet. If at least a few other wallets add the feature to pay OP_RETURN > "addresses" and it seems popular, then I'm wrong and so I would probably > then change my position.* > One of the nice things is that the current psbt interface uses a blind union type whereby the entires in an array are either [address, amount] or ["data", hex]. Having an address type would allow more uniform handling, which is convenient for strongly typed RPC bindings (e.g. rust bitcoin uses a hashmap of address to amount so without a patch you can't create op returns). > > > > > > * Regarding "parsing block data", I don't think there's any need to change > Bitcoin Core's current representation of OP_RETURN outputs (which is just > showing the hex-encoded script in RPC output). For any program needing > OP_RETURN output, hex format is going to be a the next best thing to > getting it in raw binary. Any other address format is going to be equal or > more work*. > Thats a fair point. I'm mostly thinking about this in the context of strongly typed languages/frameworks where you'll get an address object or enum out, rather than something *stringly* typed. But yes in terms of stringy languages I don't think any changes are needed. *Additionally, as mentioned in the other thread about OP_RETURN this* *week, increasing transaction fees should increasingly push uses of* *OP_RETURN off the network or into more efficient constructions, so it* *doesn't seem warranted to me to spend a lot of time trying to optimize* *how we use it when we'll be using it less and less over time.* Hmm. I agree it should get priced out over time. However there are some uses for this kind of stuff. E.g. stealth addresses, or a single instance of open time stamps. The main reason I think they merit some sort of std address type is that I'm writing software that can handle things that we might reasonably see on the network. And it's relatively annoying (without a custom type) to represent OP_RETURN as a not-exceptional type of thing. In my code what I have done is added the following type: pub enum ExtendedAddress { /// A regular standard address type Address(bitcoin::Address), /// An OP_RETURN OpReturn(OpReturn), /// Unknown Unknown(bitcoin::Script), } Which works more or less fine, but I would much prefer to not have to do this in a custom way, as opposed to a way which is defined in a standard manner across all software (after all, that's the point of standards). Best, Jeremy --00000000000097972105c0bd6f22 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Inline responses

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 11:18 AM David A. Harding <= dave@dtrt.org> wr= ote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 08:46:= 07AM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Script is technically "too wide" a type as what I really wan= t is to
> only return coins with known output types.

I don't understand this concern.=C2=A0 If script is too wide a type, th= en
OP_RETURN being a scriptPubKey of arbitrary length up to almost a
million bytes is also going to be too wide, right?


I meant the type itself is too wide, not the length of the value. As= in Script can represent things we know nothing about. There's a bit of= leaky abstraction since the values self describe the type they are. For ad= dresses it's just representations IMO for the standard output types one= might expect from standard software.=C2=A0

Btw: According to... Oh wait... You?
https://bitco= in.stackexchange.com/questions/35878/is-there-a-maximum-size-of-a-scriptsig= -scriptpubkey the max size is 10k bytes. Still probably too big for an = address, but I'd be ok with making op_return addresses only defined for= a small size (e.g. 128 bytes?)



> 1) Should it be human readable & checksummed or encoded?

It should absolutely not be human readable in the sense of being
meaningful to humans.=C2=A0 We've seen in the past that tools and sites= that
display OP_RETURN data as ASCII encourage people to put text in the
block chain that is offensive and illegal.=C2=A0 This puts people running nodes at risk of social and legal intervention.=C2=A0 Bitcoin's
premissionless nature means we can't stop people from creating such
problems, but we can lower the risk by having our tools default to
meaningless representations of OP_RETURN data.

The best advice I've seen is to display OP_RETURN data in hex.=C2=A0 It= 's
still possible to say things like "dead beef" with that, but sign= ificant
abuse is hard.=C2=A0 This will, of course, make even 80 byte OP_RETURN
"addresses" very long.

Is it possible/easy to, say, using be= ch32m make an inappropriate message in the address? You'd have to write= the message, then see what it decodes to without checking, and then re enc= ode? I guess this is worse than hex?

But it seems this is a general thing... If you wanted an inapp= ropriate message you could therefore just use bech32m addressed outputs.


> 2) Should it have a fixed length of max 40-80 bytes or should we su= pport
> arbitrary length strings?

If it doesn't support the fell range, somebody's just going to comp= lain
later and there will have to be a v2 address.

So 10,000 bytes? Or do we = care to represent outputs that would be consensus invalid?



> 3) Should it be possible (i.e., from core) to pay into such an OP_RETU= RN or
> should we categorize OP_RETURNS as a non-payable address type (and jus= t use
> it for parsing blockdata)

I don't think including arbitrary data in the block chain is something<= br> that's currently useful for typical end users, and applications that want to use OP_RETURN with Bitcoin Core can already call
create(psbt|rawtransaction) with the `data` field, so I'd be mildly
opposed in including such a feature in Bitcoin Core's wallet.=C2=A0 If = at
least a few other wallets add the feature to pay OP_RETURN "addresses&= quot;
and it seems popular, then I'm wrong and so I would probably then chang= e
my position.

One of the nice things is that the current psbt interface u= ses a blind union type whereby the entires in an array are either [address,= amount] or ["data", hex]. Having an address type would allow mor= e uniform handling, which is convenient for strongly typed RPC bindings (e.= g. rust bitcoin uses a hashmap of address to amount so without a patch you = can't create op returns).


Regarding "parsing block data", I don't think there's any= need to change
Bitcoin Core's current representation of OP_RETURN outputs (which is just showing the hex-encoded script in RPC output).=C2=A0 For any program needing OP_RETURN output, hex format is going to be a the next best
thing to getting it in raw binary.=C2=A0 Any other address format is going = to
be equal or more work.
Thats a fair point. I'm mostly thinking about= this in the context of strongly typed languages/frameworks where you'l= l get an address object or enum out, rather than something *stringly* typed= . But yes in terms of stringy languages I don't think any changes are n= eeded.=C2=A0

Addition= ally, as mentioned in the other thread about OP_RETURN this
week, increasing transaction fees should increasingly push u= ses of
OP_RETURN off the network or into more= efficient constructions, so it
doesn't s= eem warranted to me to spend a lot of time trying to optimize
how we use it when we'll be using it less and less ove= r time.


Hmm. I agree it should get priced out over time. However th= ere are some uses for this kind of stuff. E.g. stealth addresses, or a sing= le instance of open time stamps.=C2=A0

The main reason I think they merit some sort of std address = type is that I'm writing software that can handle things that we might = reasonably see on the network. And it's relatively annoying (without a = custom type) to represent OP_RETURN as= a not-exceptional type of thing.

=
In my code what I hav= e done is added the following type:

=
pub enum ExtendedAddress {
/// A regular standard address type
=
Address(bit= coin::Address),
/// An OP_RETURN
OpReturn(OpReturn),
/// Unknown
Unknown(bitcoin::Script),
}
Which works more or= less fine, but I would much prefer to not have to do this in a custom way,= as opposed to a way which is defined in a standard manner across all softw= are (after all, that's the point of standards).

Best,

Jeremy
--00000000000097972105c0bd6f22--