Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6346C000A for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54BC60E24 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 tMwZZRNt-Oaw for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B26260E23 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id v19-20020a0568300913b029028423b78c2dso17467593ott.8 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:45 -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 :cc; bh=wmQRr6wDgxjMBigN1roNIjCW0rk4DlUeZs7sSp6ijQc=; b=Hgh+YR/s+tG2H4f8etDtqYv5nP7h5SjJLBNWXSPgsswHkBhrV3P5VXYMCyqSy7spXw jI4AaVFBKDGc4S41T6rfbqBmQ9R6OWXT+B2gXbe2JeQkKyfJIE4qiUaAQRD0tjdTop5Y LYW4Pja5S1XraFJXssj0yR8THoGT3aOsapvMTb7dc1eedSmzH803s3sXuQQiOtwz/0IV avJb1Nycy6QNJ2RmcQ3qCvFxzRZeWc0knwig7LVYs3mb69djJsW0/2WqZi63abxfFMnD 2+o5MkijaTkzokcPq91dEpKmcrcQea9by78nsCAtLhcOZHkpsqPbd/4NRY+9AR//tLdX w12A== 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:cc; bh=wmQRr6wDgxjMBigN1roNIjCW0rk4DlUeZs7sSp6ijQc=; b=PX7guCWk/MdMFrSiJlTV7KdNazEVmosL7qF7ZObcud001Wzoai0dY3leg7Guek1vfg GA5XcajqrIyy39R9H77xpRdc3pcxHIpg2bD0VmjciiUSp6P8ca1oIOUA6gR3RAFh52X4 t/hR3IgTFebBFzvAfxdYSb/cUHtUFICkv2o/At2vPL1ocpWDkvVqxWYLMRElNvhhcDEx V0HV3Lexd8XDEdVYLNFKnPpYW9PctyJ4+gD0q5JgJ8qmJVEwycwnpBdHe/tkF8WjnV43 JvAlvpQjoP20RPR2RLDaOyvOqp+AoDlMAyjF9OVjO9q49iwG81pvhFPpi2AG372f5/Nv zM1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yLejLDQ/d24zpjcGDvOEJcu67uq9/F6V3YuyyukH6pNJMtmlf /WSV0cdySAvfQca37HPXNL7NWSEae42OMZ8vYTo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGEURZAGxQRYXxlAAqDbWGUObPNQY/E13fy1BQgYphSgo2JoGIxTaVVpl7+HLW0U/7mJEkA+2XCX24J4b9nOQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:14cd:: with SMTP id t13mr4226275otq.74.1618587284270; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:34:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Christopher Gilliard Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Russell O'Connor" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001df15005c018b808" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:47:09 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:34:48 -0000 --0000000000001df15005c018b808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is not helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions can always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy multi-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the private key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users do this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is problematic because such multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys are indistinguishable from "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must be kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO set. This sounds like a good justification to remove the legacy multi-signature capabilities as well. >> Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat. You can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you can make it harder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doing what they want to do. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Russell O'Connor wrote: > Firstly, a minor point is that your proposal is a soft-fork, not a > hard-fork. > > But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is not > helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions can > always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy > multi-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the > private key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users > do this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is > problematic because such multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys are > indistinguishable from "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must > be kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which > are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO > set. > > Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting > arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage > people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use > the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat. > > Also, as it stands, fees already nudge various participants to consolidate > their data in the way that you suggest they do. > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:32 AM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I have created a BIP which can be found here: >> https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki >> >> I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal. >> If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know. >> >> Regards, >> Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > --0000000000001df15005c018b808 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>= > But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is = not helpful.=C2=A0 Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transact= ions can always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy mu= lti-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the p= rivate key in order to encode non-key related data).=C2=A0 Not only can use= rs do this, users have done this in the past.=C2=A0 However, this behaviour= is problematic because such multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys= are indistinguishable from "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, = and thus must be kept in the UTXO set.=C2=A0 This differs from outputs usin= g OP_RETURN which are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omi= tted from the UTXO set.

This sounds like a good j= ustification to remove the legacy multi-signature capabilities as well.

>> Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from p= utting arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encour= age people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to u= se the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.

=
You can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you= can make it harder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doi= ng what they want to do.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Russell O'= ;Connor <roconnor@blockstrea= m.com> wrote:
Firstly, a minor point is that your proposal is = a soft-fork, not a hard-fork.

But more importantly= , adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is not helpful.=C2=A0 Users = who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions can always do so by = encoding their data inside the values of legacy multi-signature scriptpubke= ys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the private key in order to en= code non-key related data).=C2=A0 Not only can users do this, users have do= ne this in the past.=C2=A0 However, this behaviour is problematic because s= uch multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys are indistinguishable fr= om "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must be kept in = the UTXO set.=C2=A0 This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which are pro= vably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO set.

Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop= people from putting arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we= rather encourage people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in tr= ansaction to use the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.
=

Also, as it stands, fees already nudge various particip= ants to consolidate their data in the way that you suggest they do.

On F= ri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:32 AM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I have created a BIP whic= h can be found here:=C2=A0https://github.com/cgil= liard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki

I= 9;m sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal. If = there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.

Regards,
Chris
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000001df15005c018b808--