Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CBEC002D for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C6A81E46 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 29C6A81E46 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=npXhPehE X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6R-NDMysU1Pq for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 0490481E41 Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0490481E41 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:00 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1669074724; x=1669333924; bh=EzIAsSKVrpKRqhyPyOqpAOEMfjBSGAwKPT9vF8eC2tk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=npXhPehEDFMR++BB6m/MeeXv5prSDSufyHyZosLVWD70t63MDHA6sZ8gAFXXlQbn4 FX+F/3hTbgF9CfhidDF4O9PlgSG5GP1+05iC6ekE5PSkTMXaCm2IMJ1O84OCog1vjZ LItj2imGiI/rMXZToqaYgoLvSE5n65iZJkaE5lFC4YWguX22PMkKdtpK402wkdWq98 i1VLvGohF2PjzfUryNvOJ8XfeXR6fRQPbcpOwvvWgQPJGu10nccLYyOaZo0LeuGirk W9hzjSEAsQUJJ40VLwhe6fhCYpLgrOw3eHKZe3vHXqUXrzJnx+OKXL/OJK01qjCt/7 XQ5FmI/0U1Q/Q== To: Andrew Melnychuk Oseen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Relative txout amounts with a Merkleized Sum Tree and explicit miner fee. 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:52:08 -0000 Good morning Andrew, >=20 >=20 > Can output amounts be mapped to a tap branch? For the goal of secure part= ial spends of a single UTXO? Looking for feedback on this idea. I got it fr= om Taro. Not at all. The issue you are facing here is that only one tap branch will ever consume= the entire input amount. That is: while Taproot has multiple leaves, only exactly one leaf will ever= be published onchain and that gets the whole amount. What you want is multiple tree leaves where ALL of them will EVENTUALLY be = published, just not right now. In that case, look at the tree structures for `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY`, whi= ch are exactly what you are looking for, and help make `OP_CTV` a reality. Without `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY` it is possible to use presigned transactio= ns in a tree structure to do this same construction. Presigned transactions are known to be larger than `OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY`= --- signatures on taproot are 64 bytes of witness, but an `OP_CHECKTEMPLAT= EVERIFY` in a P2WSH reveals just 32 bytes of witness plus the `OP_CHECKTEMP= LATEVERIFY` opcode. Regards, ZmnSCPxj