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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F000D98
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:05:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194AF1A0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:05:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE72A38AD91D;
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:04:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180806:lautaro.dragan@gmail.com::e+VE=v7gNTIezpJr:betcU
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180806:lautarodragan@gmail.com::V=M4T00+MY9GONKm:b8297
X-Hashcash: 1:25:180806:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::23Nkce7d/0UawrrZ:aSKEp
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: lautaro.dragan@gmail.com, Lautaro Dragan <lautarodragan@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 02:04:18 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20100827.1168748)
References: <CAK6DEspS1+LWwJgbVfWaM3gHwmhYPGBuV+dLPATe--QwmUUa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK6DEspS1+LWwJgbVfWaM3gHwmhYPGBuV+dLPATe--QwmUUa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201808060204.19511.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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 02:05:37 -0000
Are you doing coloured coins or storing data?
If the former, you should probably collaborate with the authors of BIP 160
(yet to be added to the main repo), and/or write a new BIP if BIP 160 is
insufficient for some reason.
If the latter, you just shouldn't do it at all.
Note that BIPs need to specify an actual protocol, not just claim a prefix.
On Sunday 05 August 2018 21:11:26 Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev 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/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e
>84c/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=OP_RETURN&oldid=62560> 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?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Lautaro
|
