Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF5BC002B for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0679C81301 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:51:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 0679C81301 Authentication-Results: smtp1.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=c3upiIdE X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 4WyFG7u7UoHB for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:51:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org B8B5F812F5 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8B5F812F5 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B438B5C0099; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 07:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 01 Feb 2023 07:51:41 -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=1675255901; x=1675342301; bh=2 7Qy9sYmpHFhJvQdA/UDTilmzgkrMyQoxFrAYacCtKg=; b=c3upiIdED1RT12DVf /PvI65XD6fxIsE/3G2GduBpZXSj21Lrs+hUnimRQSar9sfJBxT00MRwGiP6rlrSi ORMzNdHGifXL2WRnkNGeCJdoWb+3koqtGUlv60XKaW6/Yq2a1qn3QjtBVjzVRkI0 cUQoB74Vfb2mLh8CvAY4dQ+86KMbv8RRLHNfowtVQjAoGcQwvoEUXy6AOwifFQuU v63ZrYYqNROilaqAkUbVNzZMsm1IWA5sB6qHCHj/PDonu57yOcRxKpEOc/I8+8oz HXcSyHSOiNjfPBHh5SXc6WhGw8v5/OUKQ8e/mpWC7AvRVi7CAkmlcQJ6yITRe1HZ h+2Cg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudefiedggeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffufggjfhfkgggtgfesthhqmhdttderjeenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpefhteeuleffvddujeejteejjefgjeefleeiieejudeiiedvueegffefueeglefg ueenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvg htvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 07:51:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 12:51:38 +0000 From: Peter Todd To: Kostas Karasavvas , Christopher Allen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org> 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: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 12:51:45 -0000 On February 1, 2023 8:36:52 AM GMT, Kostas Karasavvas wrote: >With OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immediately visible in the >blockchain=2E I would consider this better (more straightforward) for thi= ngs >like time-stamping=2E You are incorrect=2E Time-stamps merely prove that data existed prior to s= ome point in time=2E There is absolutely no need for anything to be publish= ed in the blockchain to create a timestamp=2E Indeed, efficient timestamps = don't actually publish any meaningful data: for efficiency you always combi= ne many timestamps into a single merkle tree; a merkle tree tip digest is m= eaningless data by itself=2E OpenTimestamps does in fact use OpReturn rather than something more effici= ent=2E But it does this only because the efficiency gain isn't significant = enough for me to have gotten around to improving it=2E Reducing fee costs b= y ~10% isn't a good use of my time=2E >With Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visible=2E Thi= s >seems better when you don't want the data public but you need to be able = to >reveal the data when the time comes=2E If your concern is the data being public due to OpReturn vs Taproot, you a= re confused and need to think more carefully about what exactly you are doi= ng=2E