Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CBCC0029 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24EB844B4 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:01:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org D24EB844B4 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=ose6+Xkq X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUBJpcLpFRKT for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:01:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org ADF8A84497 Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF8A84497 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:01:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-96f5d651170so723846466b.1 for ; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 08:01:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685718074; x=1688310074; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YFywPDv0LgbvyLrF9LjR+XVXnhQt/aaJbmbZr0DEVYA=; b=ose6+Xkq8YRF/RKE9BUJ6Dr7B7RdoSa45rOkKBL35H0g8o0GwsoPZcq5dqAEG9ac0K r/U9x2C1sp0AurtNaPlnorLMrfjNwmYRf+J2cKwk63Ia9TvM65WALpYkbWg32AElGB55 iySP7FN9i/dGL7fUlUU9IBHrLoAfioVIaW6N3bT5EWIIjp3nPG/oXIeY/p2PO7U5nOVv DM2bo9bhJwVFKbKP0jGk72NVqlj2tLLLmWkLfXnMDTdifaxAAXt3+ETnfHqAqsJnsjp2 dlL00DOmddOJGs72feSmHoauQ++K91kLGc7ymXskyY3l36z3EdCsrML6sjmOmKeX7zUx jpaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685718074; x=1688310074; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YFywPDv0LgbvyLrF9LjR+XVXnhQt/aaJbmbZr0DEVYA=; b=Ba6gYCpA0KXjpGO36AApAmlWXXPBEOtCb1f0FfBzbiB78lJUu76XxfHGJute6zGcjX +taYSIQBGGlXIA9PTc4ru45Bw1kKgKESNyBqq4fDHNizvX5hOsmB2Ret/ypTglkV3yg/ m7jwk0wk0gzv0o5RywvHinv4s5XhrRgtZxZ2Zw/3U4FdXcXnlBOBLkGr4j9zmdwFqdPw OgHQtC1CaML2qCe+WEA4jV8ft0VDhpYB8ziLzHfh1/Lj8FtVL8JzZqmpGKDVCF9eUqFL d938W071/6Nw4cHnd7IJDb3r7LaA2/wsOMmzmmrN+y5KWL1faxvvvkyy6kLADBS1GCvY 6HJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw4k8pm5CdEVbHQQpuvGErihL5s6wjKBqh68FJX94YO9VsmGxhn 2J7mVqJqYCeOgdxNIATA4InAZNVhvKdlmtU0tDKi5Bqqkjs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ76vgCDOMwPBkDQyijTWhGT59K2P5SQltdJK7uOZ7G+lHTRDaG4g4AFsos92tj1jWfPmqNWgj0YKn0pJ4kZMgw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9484:b0:973:e5bf:281e with SMTP id dm4-20020a170907948400b00973e5bf281emr5128069ejc.27.1685718073538; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Joost Jager Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:00:37 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6fe9305fd26d2d3" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 21:17:56 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Standardisation of an unstructured taproot annex 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: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 15:01:17 -0000 --000000000000f6fe9305fd26d2d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, As it stands, the taproot annex is consensus valid but non-standard. The conversations around standardization seem to be leaning towards the adoption of a flexible Type-Length-Value (TLV) format [1]. There's no doubt that this approach has considerable potential. However, settling on an exact format may require a significant amount of time. In the interim, the benefits of making the annex available in a non-structured form are both evident and immediate. By allowing developers to utilize the taproot annex without delay, we can take advantage of its features today, without the need to wait for the finalization of a more lengthy standardization process. With this in view, I am proposing that we define any annex that begins with '0' as free-form, without any additional constraints. This strategy offers several distinct benefits: Immediate utilization: This opens the door for developers to make use of the taproot annex for a variety of applications straight away, thus eliminating the need to wait for the implementation of TLV or any other structured format. Future flexibility: Assigning '0'-beginning annexes as free-form keeps our options open for future developments and structure improvements. As we forge ahead in determining the best way to standardize the annex, this strategy ensures we do not limit ourselves by setting its structure in stone prematurely. Chainspace efficiency: Non-structured data may require fewer bytes compared to a probable TLV format, which would necessitate the encoding of length even when there's only a single field. In conclusion, adopting this approach will immediately broaden the utilization scope of the taproot annex while preserving the possibility of transitioning to a more structured format in the future. I believe this is a pragmatic and efficient route, one that can yield substantial benefits in both the short and long term. Joost [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1381 --000000000000f6fe9305fd26d2d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

As it stands, the taproot annex is consensus va= lid but non-standard. The conversations around standardization seem to be l= eaning towards the adoption of a flexible Type-Length-Value (TLV) format [1= ]. There's no doubt that this approach has considerable potential. Howe= ver, settling on an exact format may require a significant amount of time.<= br>
In the interim, the benefits of making the annex available in a non-= structured form are both evident and immediate. By allowing developers to u= tilize the taproot annex without delay, we can take advantage of its featur= es today, without the need to wait for the finalization of a more lengthy s= tandardization process.

With this in view, I am proposing that we de= fine any annex that begins with '0' as free-form, without any addit= ional constraints. This strategy offers several distinct benefits:

I= mmediate utilization: This opens the door for developers to make use of the= taproot annex for a variety of applications straight away, thus eliminatin= g the need to wait for the implementation of TLV or any other structured fo= rmat.

Future flexibility: Assigning '0'-beginning annexes as= free-form keeps our options open for future developments and structure imp= rovements. As we forge ahead in determining the best way to standardize the= annex, this strategy ensures we do not limit ourselves by setting its stru= cture in stone prematurely.

Chainspace efficiency: Non-structured da= ta may require fewer bytes compared to a probable TLV format, which would n= ecessitate the encoding of length even when there's only a single field= .

In conclusion, adopting this approach will immediately broaden th= e utilization scope of the taproot annex while preserving the possibility o= f transitioning to a more structured format in the future. I believe this i= s a pragmatic and efficient route, one that can yield substantial benefits = in both the short and long term.

Joost

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/13= 81
--000000000000f6fe9305fd26d2d3--