MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157744394-3dec42994f1798ce65b00e23b21ea656@pmq2v.m5r2.onet>
 <CAJ4-pEBnprd-SdXMZeDsJ37=SiGbQEnaFfpvBzryR21Wbqc1Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <vmZt7irtItdhrsha-cHM0-HgzhCQ6GlWdJXr6mKzEHXmoNz5ypuQLR9eKsltreHb0O2kMfcr_VRkZ1hmoJ9RAp5DaMZorhG1JsRSclhin6s=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vmZt7irtItdhrsha-cHM0-HgzhCQ6GlWdJXr6mKzEHXmoNz5ypuQLR9eKsltreHb0O2kMfcr_VRkZ1hmoJ9RAp5DaMZorhG1JsRSclhin6s=@protonmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 02:12:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pECnAebQGN2=22ifGga9rtO2svdxY1bX96_VEW-wpjEpWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072589a05d8cd65f6"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_RETURN inside TapScript
Precedence: list

--00000000000072589a05d8cd65f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi ZmnSCPxj,

Any benefits of my proposal depend on my presumption that using a standard
transaction for storing data must be inefficient. Presumably a transaction
takes up significantly more on-chain space than the data it carries within
its OP_RETURN. Therefore, not requiring a standard transaction for data
storage should be more efficient. Facilitating data storage within some
specialized, more space-efficient data structure at marginally lower fee
per payload-byte should enable reducing the footprint of storing data
on-chain.

In case storing data through OP_RETURN embedded within a transaction is
optimal in terms of on-chain footprint then my proposal doesn=E2=80=99t see=
m useful.

Zac

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 01:05, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Zac,
>
> > Reducing the footprint of storing data on-chain might better be achieve=
d
> by *supporting* it.
> >
> > Currently storing data is wasteful because it is embedded inside an
> OP_RETURN within a transaction structure. As an alternative, by supportin=
g
> storing of raw data without creating a transaction, waste can be reduced.
>
> If the data is not embedded inside a transaction, how would I be able to
> pay a miner to include the data on the blockchain?
>
> I need a transaction in order to pay a miner anyway, so why not just embe=
d
> it into the same transaction I am using to pay the miner?
> (i.e. the current design)
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

--00000000000072589a05d8cd65f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi=C2=A0<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">ZmnSCPxj,</span>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><=
div style=3D"background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0)!important;border-color:rgb(255,=
255,255)!important;color:rgb(255,255,255)!important" dir=3D"auto"><font sty=
le=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Any benefits of my proposal depend on my presumptio=
n that using a standard transaction for storing data must be inefficient. P=
resumably a transaction takes up significantly more on-chain space than the=
 data it carries within its OP_RETURN. Therefore, not requiring a standard =
transaction for data storage should be more efficient. Facilitating data st=
orage within some specialized, more space-efficient data structure at margi=
nally lower fee per payload-byte should enable reducing the footprint of st=
oring data on-chain.</font></div><div style=3D"background-color:rgba(0,0,0,=
0);border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir=3D"auto"><font style=3D"color:rgb(0,0=
,0)"><br></font></div><div style=3D"background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0)!importan=
t;border-color:rgb(32,33,36)!important;color:rgb(255,255,255)!important" di=
r=3D"auto"><font style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">In case storing data through OP=
_RETURN embedded within a transaction is optimal in terms of on-chain footp=
rint then my proposal doesn=E2=80=99t seem useful.</font></div><div style=
=3D"background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir=3D"au=
to"><font style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></font></div><div style=3D"backgro=
und-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir=3D"auto"><font s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Zac</font></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 01:05, ZmnS=
CPxj &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com=
</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Good morning Zac,<br>
<br>
&gt; Reducing the footprint of storing data on-chain might better be achiev=
ed by *supporting* it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Currently storing data is wasteful because it is embedded inside an OP=
_RETURN within a transaction structure. As an alternative, by supporting st=
oring of raw data without creating a transaction, waste can be reduced.<br>
<br>
If the data is not embedded inside a transaction, how would I be able to pa=
y a miner to include the data on the blockchain?<br>
<br>
I need a transaction in order to pay a miner anyway, so why not just embed =
it into the same transaction I am using to pay the miner?<br>
(i.e. the current design)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--00000000000072589a05d8cd65f6--