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
|
Return-Path: <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC11C002B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD3F418EF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:44 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 3DD3F418EF
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mail.wpsoftware.net
header.i=@mail.wpsoftware.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default
header.b=RA6Mc7Va
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ccWU1qIvfioo
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 3572C416DE
Received: from mail.wpsoftware.net (unknown [66.183.0.205])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3572C416DE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from camus (camus-andrew.lan [192.168.0.190])
by mail.wpsoftware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F516400F1;
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:42 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.wpsoftware.net;
s=default; t=1675260162;
bh=tKdjItyoxV/RIyu+8rTd4Ep3kzs1ZphXqJR8HJYAQWI=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
b=RA6Mc7VaOFuDKqW9TS51XEGxrJca4Mo91C4/gc3qNgh5pLHIpIe2TwDfNiVQN4mQ1
VOvfWEELe+hzBf5NyucPpTQVG+1uZWBr/S37nOTRTaxUk7/8Z6zEUcxNcDahM1MdRO
6VWLYG6j0D3fiBGGAq5NgHt/h7iyBSTOkJD7zqxJ9hPTJjR5xYRB6zT0dcGhwox2wQ
ffn2TyIYIv6+pYqtZfhF/ve4oxGYc0BoFgeL0fcejjD66+gXAH8lY0m1yaY4yAjzrA
DdB5+CqHLZQCJfmnCmc5NERck1woDxDtqdHvcT+3NqS7WXSTHwFeGT5ZS+0przT2Yd
SGp/6lyu0Wqzw==
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:41 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y9pxAdm3kO1rr2kU@camus>
References: <CACrqygAMsO1giYuxm=DZUqfeRjEqGM7msmEnZ-AHws3oA2=aqw@mail.gmail.com>
<764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nWZB0gZ2X2UHlfwL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org>
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 <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: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 14:02:44 -0000
--nWZB0gZ2X2UHlfwL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:07:16PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On January 31, 2023 7:46:32 PM EST, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >All other things being equal, which is better if you need to place a
> >64-bytes into the Bitcoin blockchain? A traditional OP_RETURN or a spent
> >taproot transaction such as:
> >
> >OP_FALSE
> >OP_IF
> >OP_PUSH my64bytes
> >OP_ENDIF
>=20
> What's wrong with OpPush <data> OpDrop?
>
This is a technical nit, but the reason is that <data> is limited to 520
bytes (and I believe, 80 bytes by standardness in Taproot), so if you
are pushing a ton of data and need multiple pushes, it's more efficient
to use FALSE IF ... ENDIF since you avoid the repeated DROPs.
--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
The sun is always shining in space
-Justin Lewis-Webster
--nWZB0gZ2X2UHlfwL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmPacPsACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8E2fgf9GfLkWMUmOj+C4fu//NkYwU4gfaD0sPhfOh4BYyDLuV+/ONvTFh8Bcy9d
F7slt/uFFcDu6BBFBydAwN7iXSWd9SLxG2ZmLZWKm2lG1UwF9NXC2jvUP+b0q6V0
UPn8rsUX8JgQOMFUX2rnSY3EAOv/d3HrZwTuwavSrIfhRiS6UOJ3hQbEBxa7eKG7
cKVHknyt3Q6dbe/m+H8eilt5g1C9wykjUjyQ/u4igKbJw4w4GlpBNlPi+GXnRyp0
ZpAkmmVZW8BX4GnWWsc0Px53L3GfzAxPPIWpp/oPk410SiTO6EVRfCB0hWLzbgKS
vHRa7CTWt8+Hqa7m/T485ltq3g/FaQ==
=A61H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nWZB0gZ2X2UHlfwL--
|
