Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8164BD7D for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 01:55:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B934C1A0 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 01:55:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id f12-v6so10779368wrv.12 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:55:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IWalwU1XomXuEjWmo5mJ8IEzWiPW4NlJZ3Ow8LNh1s8=; b=qqlKqJpLx3PA0NOlCnq2+n9WK5FiXHo2iwlR9LeAVT2zqPTTojadUL3QaNLB8Pxci7 QAWt80KAQwJKVWSRJABSzA4Ax7lO/eLpILdOi5hoRfKHl4OB3zrdQwvAcmMGIcMNQhGH VPBNC/lsvQlwdaypuOSkA9zWUEfJlOvnh/tOrBz4xlBfXNQQ54tBL+sNiK9fqJAnuLtn vWnxuxlcc8ZQtLDpMhWPCD2QxqFsG4ELvxcrSsOGLNV5GSET+KGrQ3MymvbhLTMtBzWA jOz+CB+T+iMQCIfwGaCBas8XfUO1Bqc/FOt2YsxPTHUT7Z0/4iWSyf4t++8v+LAZAniP P4Lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=IWalwU1XomXuEjWmo5mJ8IEzWiPW4NlJZ3Ow8LNh1s8=; b=btsB39gEr0fClGAFn1fFUJqwU5qt6+zz1d2TTQr7jkceF3V9XdYpuV1XJiZD2vF7Fg 5casWcWg8QSyVi3Md1ghCczBjqakh9+WawtrnFq7IXeFk51FGWqQbQvZMQiHAFZmhqUy +rRSLVJCBQyrWYGXxuGBu16iHNJW8m/wukpT1iwUZMVaq3U8xwzp9n/72SZh7F+NqWrX x/ZzFOoErFXnC3vgyrRQDMezun4gCZG6SdgQ4IO0U54QhT0pnoKWSeNh18q2BVF5Sipu 4AyVjE7EulKBcT0nAZGbYk/qZEXmtgIOC6K1nV/9OV6EpHXskcu8ua0SotTlW4Woj7WY rSKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFyVcE0LiFv5wxUPRkYyZ/oqGhaJysHzjQIOg0L3+j1HPiinwQi aRsgj4xYPkPMav9PDsMlexH2NXxTfjROxzP9Tjw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeIVkSkoDwkuvkHtcZIkgI9Dk9aNqaMnqbj6e7PZzju3cNZSNATOe3rpQWoZjboEFOTBk8Opgz6/hNDNnZgj5U= X-Received: by 2002:adf:8541:: with SMTP id 59-v6mr7794212wrh.223.1533520501318; Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:55:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: CryptAxe Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 18:54:50 -0700 Message-ID: To: lautaro.dragan@gmail.com, Lautaro Dragan , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bca7ba0572ba90b9" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 01:57:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 01:55:03 -0000 --000000000000bca7ba0572ba90b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't worry about claiming it. There are no reserved prefixes enforced by the software. For example anyone could create an output that uses the witness coinbase commitment prefix bytes. It would just be ignored (unless it was in the coinbase, in which case it would also need to be valid). On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 6:47 PM Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Thanks Peter for your prompt reply. > > And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to > differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be > for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean? > > Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little while > until we can address that issue. > > Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow? > > > > > El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd > escribi=C3=B3: > >> >> >> On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >Hi everyone, >> > >> >My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et >> >. At Po.et we >> >use >> >colored coins >> >< >> https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e= 5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110 >> > >> >to >> >store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET". >> > >> >I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin wiki >> > tha= t >> >*protocols >> >wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin >> >Improvement Proposals process*. >> > >> >That entry seems to have changed recently >> >, no longer >> >stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been able >> >to >> >find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of >> >thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here. >> > >> >Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix? >> >> It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resistanc= e >> and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefi= x >> for technical reasons. >> >> -- >> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000bca7ba0572ba90b9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't worry about claiming it. There are no reserved = prefixes enforced by the software. For example anyone could create an outpu= t that uses the witness coinbase commitment prefix bytes. It would just be = ignored (unless it was in the coinbase, in which case it would also need to= be valid).=C2=A0

On S= un, Aug 5, 2018, 6:47 PM Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation= .org> wrote:
Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.=C2=A0

And now that= I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to differentiate = OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be for miners to b= lock those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean?

Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little= while until we can address that issue.=C2=A0

Is t= here a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow?



<= div dir=3D"ltr">El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd <pe= te@petertodd.org> escribi=C3=B3:


On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.e= t
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki= /OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>. At Po.et we
>use
>colored coins
><https://github.com/poetapp/no= de/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/Claim= Controller.ts#L101-L110>
>to
>store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET".
>
>I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin w= iki
><https://en.b= itcoin.it/w/index.php?title=3DOP_RETURN&oldid=3D62560> that
>*protocols
>wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin
>Improvement Proposals process*.
>
>That entry seems to have changed recently
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki= /OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>, no longer
>stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been a= ble
>to
>find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of=
>thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here. >
>Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?

It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resi= stance and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require= a prefix for technical reasons.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000bca7ba0572ba90b9--