path: root/3d/605079e94ae9137e5399e2f31f9e4dfbca4bd2

Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76A4C0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:14:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6E360F1E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:14:00 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 8C6E360F1E
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=BU0k2vSv
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0JW0QoWe8QSN
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:13:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpo94.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo94.poczta.onet.pl
 [213.180.149.147])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF66F60F19
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:13:58 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org BF66F60F19
Received: from pmq3v.m5r2.onet (pmq3v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.69])
 by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4SDNdV0YKnzgc2;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:13:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
 t=1698038030; bh=6CaGEicOBo6ucnERtuJV9x1ZsEU3Vta7o524RxKLGk0=;
 h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
 b=BU0k2vSvaveRkm9tKVRwCOtEK6ths0fGkpPXjsmYW8uFKARPuI7LlEkRmxRlFssY9
 bmORsGwITXurt8eYfYuWqE33M+xxZm6nmkNBJl1bgx0Y8slYOWZNp3IhO57Ytp8LZs
 IMT+d+a2OZmex5AftKuMLq1sBVUpEpl5XPW4kIj4=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============8910380127139815667=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from [5.173.233.22] by pmq3v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:13:50 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:13:48 +0200
Message-Id: <194405691-79e11acd8b1dc1e2cdafc878b45b15c8@pmq3v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.233.22;PL;3
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:23:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:14:00 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8910380127139815667==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I think if A is top of stack, we get BA, not AB?
=C2=A0
Good question. I always thought "0x01234567 0x89abcdef OP_CAT 0x0123456789a=
bcdef OP_EQUAL" is correct, but it could be reversed as well. If we want to=
 stay backward-compatible, we can dig into the past, and test the old imple=
mentation of OP_CAT, before it was disabled. But anyway, any of those two c=
hoices will lead to similar consequences. Because you can always turn the f=
ormer into the latter by using "OP_SWAP OP_CAT", instead of "OP_CAT".
=C2=A0
> 520 feels quite small for script templates
=C2=A0
It will be easier to start with that, when it comes to reaching consensus f=
or a new soft-fork. But yes, I am very surprised, because I thought we will=
 never see things like that, and I assumed the path to OP_CAT is just perma=
nently closed. So, I am surprised this BIP reached a positive reaction, but=
 well, that kind of proposal was not battle-tested, so maybe it could succe=
ed.
=C2=A0
> 10k is the current script limit, can we get closer to that?
=C2=A0
We will get there anyway. Even if OP_CAT would allow concatenating up to 52=
0-bit Schnorr signature (not to confuse 520-bit with 520-byte), people woul=
d chain it, to reach arbitrary size. If you can concatenate secp256k1 publi=
c keys with signatures, you can create a chain of OP_CATs, that will handle=
 arbitrary size. The only limitation is then blockchain speed, which is som=
ething around 4 MB/10 min, and that is your only limit in this case.
=C2=A0
And yes, if I can see that some people try to build logical gates like NAND=
 with Bitcoin Script, then I guess all paths will be explored anyway. Which=
 means, even if we will take more conservative approach, and switch from 52=
0-byte proposal into 520-bit proposal, then still, people will do exactly t=
he same things. Now, it is all about the cost of pushing data, because some=
 people noticed, that everything can be executed on Script. I knew we will =
get there, but I expected it would just happen later than it happened.
=C2=A0
> Of course, we can increase this limit in future tapscript versions, too, =
so it's not completely set in stone.
=C2=A0
Judging by the last misuse of Ordinals, I think it may happen before anyone=
 will propose some official future version. Which means, nothing is really =
set in stone anymore, because now people know, how to activate new features=
, without any soft-fork, and some no-forks will probably be done by newbies=
, without careful designing and testing, as it is done here.
--===============8910380127139815667==
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>
<div>&gt; I think if A is top of stack, we get BA, not AB?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Good question. I always thought "0x01234567 0x89abcdef OP_CAT 0x012345=
6789abcdef OP_EQUAL" is correct, but it could be reversed as well. If we wa=
nt to stay backward-compatible, we can dig into the past, and test the old =
implementation of OP_CAT, before it was disabled. But anyway, any of those =
two choices will lead to similar consequences. Because you can always turn =
the former into the latter by using "OP_SWAP OP_CAT", instead of "OP_CAT".<=
/div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&gt; 520 feels quite small for script templates</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It will be easier to start with that, when it comes to reaching consen=
sus for a new soft-fork. But yes, I am very surprised, because I thought we=
 will never see things like that, and I assumed the path to OP_CAT is just =
permanently closed. So, I am surprised this BIP reached a positive reaction=
, but well, that kind of proposal was not battle-tested, so maybe it could =
succeed.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&gt; 10k is the current script limit, can we get closer to that?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>We will get there anyway. Even if OP_CAT would allow concatenating up =
to 520-bit Schnorr signature (not to confuse 520-bit with 520-byte), people=
 would chain it, to reach arbitrary size. If you can concatenate secp256k1 =
public keys with signatures, you can create a chain of OP_CATs, that will h=
andle arbitrary size. The only limitation is then blockchain speed, which i=
s something around 4 MB/10 min, and that is your only limit in this case.</=
div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>And yes, if I can see that some people try to build logical gates like=
 NAND with Bitcoin Script, then I guess all paths will be explored anyway. =
Which means, even if we will take more conservative approach, and switch fr=
om 520-byte proposal into 520-bit proposal, then still, people will do exac=
tly the same things. Now, it is all about the cost of pushing data, because=
 some people noticed, that everything can be executed on Script. I knew we =
will get there, but I expected it would just happen later than it happened.=
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&gt; Of course, we can increase this limit in future tapscript version=
s, too, so it's not completely set in stone.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Judging by the last misuse of Ordinals, I think it may happen before a=
nyone will propose some official future version. Which means, nothing is re=
ally set in stone anymore, because now people know, how to activate new fea=
tures, without any soft-fork, and some no-forks will probably be done by ne=
wbies, without careful designing and testing, as it is done here.</div>
</div>

--===============8910380127139815667==--