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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2665C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Mar 2022 22:56:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA85B4013A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Mar 2022 22:56:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 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,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
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 0VNv5CRMXkAK
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Mar 2022 22:56:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445CC400C1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Mar 2022 22:56:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 22:56:38 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1646693805;
bh=JlSn7dN2VnMOC7yiLkkA/HHCrNBoOZDGapgFticawig=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=huc8dZKQfFPVhCu7iKKPOHQUOVnv6U90UDP8KUHx8Li5Pcgz/8C+hDPl2eGTS2iSM
oNzMcKJ+qlorPovioyfiIdu3HD3YlxIIQmDGInBBzJjNpUOx/TJZrrTbfNOus0ADig
Vz7btef2XwdfPDbnRCpYHB+oWXz7cg//nqFZxKxRE9E+QXKJnwkUVDHiHwRNN5zt4t
eqsAO1XQGm8IfVXJrcZ60ZFqWclx49O7t/08v+2Urcys6aPE1KoNDNVvi5Y3LXbLeX
9xX++1qpJe0+ZOQLz7xedLKNkcTG5CVFBQBAHTaHd16Qf4tIh4DfFNQKrvfDkctvES
VR/YSWmd84PQQ==
To: Bram Cohen <bram@chia.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <uOr9bwW2C0lwMSiUOEie2rzyrA7uE4Rm7kVnU2FnF9jyMGjYDvN0WhDM6QbZ_XxNlu44WqE7meXBZAeHAd94DAWnYcSBOPuo4nb4UQp2Wmk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHUJnBCrw0n_9=2gugMhTW6QCjStBFxEsGrF=BY9JX806OurXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.30513.1646355894.8511.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<CAHUJnBCrw0n_9=2gugMhTW6QCjStBFxEsGrF=BY9JX806OurXQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin scripting and lisp
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, 07 Mar 2022 22:56:49 -0000
Good morning Bram,
> while in the coin set model each puzzle (scriptpubkey) gets run and eithe=
r assert fails or returns a list of extra conditions it has, possibly inclu=
ding timelocks and creating new coins, paying fees, and other things.
Does this mean it basically gets recursive covenants?
Or is a condition in this list of conditions written a more restrictive lan=
guage which itself cannot return a list of conditions?
> > =C2=A0- serialization seems to be a bit verbose -- 100kB of serialized =
clvm
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0code from a random block gzips to 60kB; optimising the ser=
ialization
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0for small lists, and perhaps also for small literal number=
s might be
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0a feasible improvement; though it's not clear to me how fr=
equently
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0serialization size would be the limiting factor for cost v=
ersus
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0execution time or memory usage.
>
> A lot of this is because there's a hook for doing compression at the cons=
ensus layer which isn't being used aggressively yet. That one has the downs=
ide that the combined cost of transactions can add up very nonlinearly, but=
when you have constantly repeated bits of large boilerplate it gets close =
and there isn't much of an alternative. That said even with that form of co=
mpression maxxed out it's likely that gzip could still do some compression =
but that would be better done in the database and in wire protocol formats =
rather than changing the format which is hashed at the consensus layer.
How different is this from "jets" as proposed in Simplicity?
> > Pretty much all the opcodes in the first section are directly from chia
> > lisp, while all the rest are to complete the "bitcoin" functionality.
> > The last two are extensions that are more food for thought than a real
> > proposal.
>
> Are you thinking of this as a completely alternative script format or an =
extension to bitcoin script? They're radically different approaches and it'=
s hard to see how they mix. Everything in lisp is completely sandboxed, and=
that functionality is important to a lot of things, and it's really normal=
to be given a reveal of a scriptpubkey and be able to rely on your parsing=
of it.
I believe AJ is proposing a completely alternative format to OG Bitcoin SCR=
IPT.
Basically, as I understand it, nothing in the design of Tapscript versions =
prevents us from completely changing the interpretation of Tapscript bytes,=
and use a completely different language.
That is, we could designate a new Tapscript version as completely different=
from OG Bitcoin SCRIPT.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
