Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00352C002B for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 12:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EE4606F9 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 12:06:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 86EE4606F9 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=n3FT+kkM X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 8Lug_5lUdOnn for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 42CE5606EC Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42CE5606EC for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F7F32007F1; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 07:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 05 Feb 2023 07:06:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1675598795; x=1675685195; bh=J ja8ATwV2F/Ikk9h4GqiCoOqEnyFrCqCKCnJ02Lh8Fw=; b=n3FT+kkMb2DQKvN6F PD3HuqT+WMB13zbX6xCo+/rAaC2S+mgNOp+V6LREXN1r7CsGJNrompqGIO7pK/rB Tj3OqtJgn2em1l9qU+w35yMLnOzWybRGbGA5JLWieXB7dmaycxN340UiYvfMnsEO kk3X/+ftMsnx3ZFf4AWMsEm7ENGPU47MqqawTSFD77lzz/nwxYYPVrmGJam51IZa bpqc5AOd45Eh4LvAVUIHIgDJxByhD50sQ8RDso+thCU9SQLqUtqMb3mh+U2jCP1g 9b/XQhGs+W67CbKn1zuO6v9CrgWLHryHIy0EbBqhms3hl9+GPMVZ4+3j4C8PXhmF OG7gg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudeggedgfeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffufggjfhfkgggtgfesthhqmhdttderjeenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpefhteeuleffvddujeejteejjefgjeefleeiieejudeiiedvueegffefueeglefg ueenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvg htvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 07:06:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 13:06:33 +0100 From: Peter Todd To: Aymeric Vitte , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Christopher Allen User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <0267d5bb-a54b-894b-3d45-e6cb89eb86a5@peersm.com> References: <57f780b1-f262-9394-036c-70084320e9cf@peersm.com> <3d00aacb-585d-f875-784d-34352860d725@peersm.com> <230265ee-c3f8-dff3-9192-f0c8dc4d913c@peersm.com> <28C74556-8AB4-4E16-AC7D-7F3FAA0A29AC@petertodd.org> <0267d5bb-a54b-894b-3d45-e6cb89eb86a5@peersm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:06:40 -0000 On February 5, 2023 12:40:38 PM GMT+01:00, Aymeric Vitte wrote: >I think logically: > >- if you want to store something big and can afford several txs in your >design, then you use something like witness > >- if you want to store small things like signatures, addresses hashes >and some metadata and your design does not make several txs easy, then >you use OP_RETURN > >Then how can we move forward with several OP_RETURN and no size limit? Because what matters is the impact on other users=2E OpReturn isn't in UTX= O space and doesn't even take advantage of the witness discount, so it clea= rly has minimal impact=2E Since it has minimal impact, there's no reason to micromanage exactly how = people use it=2E Let them decide for themselves with the fee market=2E This= is exactly the same as how we didn't put artificial limits on Taproot=2E