1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
|
Return-Path: <lautarodragan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C76CE1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 00:56:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com
[209.85.221.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3417A1A0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 00:56:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id f12-v6so10703143wrv.12
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=IWjkxe+RWV1NyjlmKSYMwLTLikiITRgg1lRvRxTWpw0=;
b=fcpJgivk0RconXGEysHTW8Fb70BguvlrSWASb8II57FCzFhIEfyH7SVw/88Tb7ht5r
xkOKN12FJl04y/GPrbifJVF//EbDPpy/D5ohH9QT+Bq0HHI75SomEX1RBCsl3EbfVI/E
HPrdFpqvHNkzxcGKaZH3RUh7RX6gfedEzNqins0lQ56PXY/BshTP37+b7PzOMHEPCYc4
fdYKz2Lm8NiBi5MlBA/wNp7Z/uegYtcNSKR6vU65gSeEKY4M5EWP/0zWn2oYLyoWapoV
Ul+PlzCjk9edhymtwRBWPgkgpxFjtvA95PhLkRHiPOp8e7pUF0KFJgQjYZljHZA4xrmR
V9/A==
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:reply-to
:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=IWjkxe+RWV1NyjlmKSYMwLTLikiITRgg1lRvRxTWpw0=;
b=fZ45sK/MvNb2H1oEBLlX08uO1M7xaem3rYaAnqJUdR2/TWnkahNfHySvKPh2I/Lpq/
WJBvhU0fcALirE0J7hM0k0OsKjhA747ECDKkdhFiwi27Uc1Iw4XKw7Lb48NgHAQOYfNc
T/yEDQ6ctqEqiQnu31D97L7YS25TIOjUxwz0u9DUP/yDgQgqWIeanTYIaZmyldbhsFTv
Na+Lb98Hf1QXjH4ftP0S5FgTU/c1jwCNM8gwacyQU0hGAJ8dTT4oh0EUF7O4XpLRcYL3
lzLmfRa80X32oB/9gwkrWnXC/lCwtEvrOHoNhVnF35W5tHIXetYbAop0vWDcGbCuQcXY
SvDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFZ8ogeA51pdPT97KPfWUOKZUJFa7bOH/qAsoZfaoO9KpoINoEM
frwPpEVDByk1tFMntQmmQNUG8ZBX7/wlqWIzRLPc/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpei9xT4yQasBmi2MKKxC4JH4fhH0EdMpLNbIgukUNJs84L9fw/dzH6sjzSVpWfvxRrSelWe1p5oA4wa3/PT3BI=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9b11:: with SMTP id
b17-v6mr8047157wrc.119.1533516971786;
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK6DEspS1+LWwJgbVfWaM3gHwmhYPGBuV+dLPATe--QwmUUa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
<F6AA346D-4AF5-4838-A91F-44FAF74A55E9@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <F6AA346D-4AF5-4838-A91F-44FAF74A55E9@petertodd.org>
Reply-To: lautaro.dragan@gmail.com
From: Lautaro Dragan <lautarodragan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 21:55:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CAK6DEsp=1A61kK5K+8xZOX3wSiUhRdVoTm5nUu9dYY3C1CsPnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no 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 01:47:21 +0000
Cc: Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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, 06 Aug 2018 00:56:14 -0000
--0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 <pete@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.et
> ><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>. At Po.et we
> >use
> >colored coins
> ><
> https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5=
e84c/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
> ><https://en.bitcoin.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 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 resistance
> and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefix
> for technical reasons.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
--0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.=C2=A0<div><br></div><d=
iv>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?</=
div><div><br></div><div>Still, a prefix is something we may have to live wi=
th for a little while until we can address that issue.=C2=A0</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follo=
w?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Pe=
ter Todd <<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>&g=
t; escribi=C3=B3:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>Hi everyone,<br>
><br>
>My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.e=
t<br>
><<a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes"=
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#=
OP_RETURN_prefixes</a>>. At Po.et we<br>
>use<br>
>colored coins<br>
><<a href=3D"https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39=
ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110" re=
l=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c9=
05bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.=
ts#L101-L110</a>><br>
>to<br>
>store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET".<br>
><br>
>I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin w=
iki<br>
><<a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=3DOP_RETURN&=
oldid=3D62560" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/w=
/index.php?title=3DOP_RETURN&oldid=3D62560</a>> that<br>
>*protocols<br>
>wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin<br>
>Improvement Proposals process*.<br>
><br>
>That entry seems to have changed recently<br>
><<a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes"=
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#=
OP_RETURN_prefixes</a>>, no longer<br>
>stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been a=
ble<br>
>to<br>
>find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of=
<br>
>thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here.<br=
>
><br>
>Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://petertodd.org</a> 'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
--0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4--
|
