Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D6FC002B for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85877400F8 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:01:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 85877400F8 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=bdwPA26Q X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19covfxv76kk for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:01:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org E634C40017 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E634C40017 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 02:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9B35C0075; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 21:01:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 04 Feb 2023 21:01:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1675562473; x=1675648873; bh=x od4IiiK2r9/teOsZlK9oCswfGagnr+lh0gU87BPTrs=; b=bdwPA26Qz3GlYwyd7 kciwdF5C8piGb5xlSlZM9AHb4wkFg3uK3k0REkgGSkZsggYa39X0dcOmtYOhI+yG ZnJnyH2H/uYaIUVA5lcxqMY2GfRTh8nJFhQ02oFfNB2lj0Av/bOc/VcNZFTwQKO2 oSKVWfiAgs/M3SG7yFWsXStocCgwKqIXqa/QlbGVabiNB/h8aaPI2LFkOA+h6QFD anljgLlxdWCbjMsms5EgPo+vXr1mb2fuY8P0f/C5IVkSX0rqcFKvarxB5VeDUHaH zKPwoTO5hvf7l/o4mAJshKCQLBepNbYJsoTlm4UsFM5yzv+Oyxnxg7PzcroKZZu4 wYm+A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudegfedggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffufggjfhfkgggtgfesthhqmhdttderjeenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpefhteeuleffvddujeejteejjefgjeefleeiieejudeiiedvueegffefueeglefg ueenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvg htvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 21:01:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 03:01:08 +0100 From: Peter Todd To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev , Aymeric Vitte User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <57f780b1-f262-9394-036c-70084320e9cf@peersm.com> <3d00aacb-585d-f875-784d-34352860d725@peersm.com> <230265ee-c3f8-dff3-9192-f0c8dc4d913c@peersm.com> Message-ID: <76718304-A8E3-46E6-B2F7-DE86831F15DF@petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH 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: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 02:01:16 -0000 On February 5, 2023 1:11:35 AM GMT+01:00, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev= wrote: >Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey, >there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper t= o >use witness data=2E Where that crossover point is depends on the finer >details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some >reasonable assumptions=2E Such a calculation could form the basis of a >reasonable OP_RETURN proposal=2E I don't know if it would be persuasive,= but >it would at least be coherent=2E I don't think it's worth the technical complexity trying to carefully argu= e a specific limit=2E Let users decide for themselves how they want to use = OpReturn=2E