path: root/e6/a14c84600f36be7256912989585ec3a402acf5

Return-Path: <rsomsen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F379C000A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:30:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7890B418CC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:30:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 4eKLCfQBN7rp
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680EA4189E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id l4so43871779ejc.10
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=7+TvqrdW/hBhKkebZEB6kSbnLK8BY4ujIPci/mXoYK0=;
 b=KvYSLHIWllVqJ0h10ex1vdOfWMUTrpidvkDgq6zCM/ACFz+2F0ckLNRRsPDDH+Qb4m
 jMismpLHsirmFgrW94IDGBgf4NtYdEyP707aZdGJKyl/U1L5UB9RNUVcIUUV8vneqQAl
 zweLQOvn5KwaEb+Cf5ayBQXUvPSA0zG5qMU/W4S/DqfQE6j2cO0U4gsEBnRxRsOMBtdG
 Wr5qBDo9yh7lQ2Y/uI5axL+ROJrWMM6r3Dor9uv0zFqPxSqqqpaovF85/wAYUsO+PtJD
 2z/A4KiZU7pNm+Dn5cuuCVQFetG6/OJ6KhJy4+a2Akpwi+c5osmBCoi7OL3KS0v5mDhS
 n7Ug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=7+TvqrdW/hBhKkebZEB6kSbnLK8BY4ujIPci/mXoYK0=;
 b=VCcj1US/0bp4kD1QeeX9Gf2HXEkdG9WS+2tKn7Lx0pO/uWNy4fAiyPIqGDlVxjn8NN
 iR6LhuQPjJZvo1H1hJx+xho7Uv4Ldb3PX2o+m6vnp296BvDMdIRJAV2Tj+eUjr7zkKDN
 xl1OZrY586C4FjOOQCvgvkPq5NCPV9P+QgzdHK2Zoze+nDlNY5/RzGzjINYyM9UjYBwv
 Xpx4X668Nti9siFuQBSyJozSbNlasmZBuMGfUxFYw8QiiBUmlXq/zQf6pjDGLGJlC2yG
 xI3jcLfR+7OCWZrU6LjJ3NaSCYuvXBOiMZ/LRWUFLhjKlzBcfhxj/WSH7G9ujooyViyX
 fuBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jc1HaL78QAom97RzRAhhm+DXlAOVYsBnOpSxq26/XYlotpBov
 ROqhTJqIumAdYaUBhfHGG1J8dnT41+i4jth/3KWEmoPgdCM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlufR5cVQOvhpST1i7qJ7J/IMnyx2V2lDKRfTHv/c9krtxjU0034rWAfMRTq3B9c3cH16ERJeNEKmOSHywDXg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4347:: with SMTP id
 z7mr9901418ejm.246.1618605020443; 
 Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK=nyAxOa8fsVfxucH7WTTMn25BCzgQ28h_sNsunedpCoRXjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABE6yHscUPAcyK58DvqhOnxSOoPMBAy9aMUmReJYSkBit-Mekg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABE6yHscUPAcyK58DvqhOnxSOoPMBAy9aMUmReJYSkBit-Mekg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 22:30:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPv7Tja=4ZFm5+gHw+wMcZyPEqeQiVx-AjyXsRn0T8a+tXHb1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 christopher.gilliard@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046772005c01cd908"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:31:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:30:26 -0000

--00000000000046772005c01cd908
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Chris,

I agree with all the points that were made by others. You should also be
aware that layer two ideas like yours have already been explored, both by
myself and others. Allowing one hash per block allows for what I call
"fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining" (BMM), which as far as I know was first
proposed by Paul Storc for Drivechains.[0]

If only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize the
hash will have to out-bid each other ("fee-bidding"). This hash can then be
used to create another chain ("merged-mining"), while the Bitcoin miners do
not have to be aware of this other chain ("blind"). There are also non
fee-bidding variants that function e.g. by burning or locking up bitcoins
in order to create consensus.

As it turns out, fee-bidding BMM can be achieved using only a covenant
structure for transactions.[1] You'd have to create a sequence of
transactions (one per block), to which a hash can be attached. These can
simply be pre-signed transactions (requires forgetting a key, but the worst
that can happen is that the chain halts), or an actual covenant using
either sighash_anyprevout or op_ctv (we don't have these yet) =E2=80=93 no
specialized soft fork (or hard fork) is required.

You might think any decentralized alternative chain requires an altcoin,
but this can also be avoided with a perpetual one-way peg.[2] For more
details, I recommend watching this video of the full concept, which I call
"spacechains": https://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg

-- Ruben Somsen



[0] Blind Merged-Mining for Drivechains:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki

[1] Fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining with covenants:
https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5

[2] Perpetual one-way peg:
https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-sidechains-=
the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2f8ac302

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:33 PM Kostas Karasavvas via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> Some feedback:
>
> "OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data."
> It is 80 bytes.
>
> "A future BIP proposing such a layer two protocol will be forthcoming."
> So what is this BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This
> BIP should be the one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one ro=
ot
> OP_RETURN substitutes all the rest it should say how that would be done..=
.
> where would the merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust
> assumptions that we need to make, etc.
>
> "Objections to this proposal" section
> I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a good thing of course.
> My main objection with this proposal is that I don't see a proposal. It
> seems like wishful thinking... if only we could substitute all the
> OP_RETURNs with one :-)
>
> We have to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure
> that there are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users=
.
> Multisig is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK,
> P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not go=
od
> enough people would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.
>
> There are a multitude of L2's (kind-of) that do this 'aggregation' of dat=
a
> hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single merkle root per
> bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records (of thousand of
> users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tierion,
> blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated several of
> those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain old
> OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust
> assumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were
> pretty solid/useful for other use cases.
>
> Unless the proposed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really prohibi=
t
> this L2 innovation that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I have created a BIP which can be found here:
>> https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki
>>
>> I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal.
>> If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Konstantinos A. Karasavvas
> Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
> https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--00000000000046772005c01cd908
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Chris,<div><br></div><div>I agree with all the points t=
hat were made by others. You should also be aware that layer two ideas like=
 yours have already been explored, both by myself and others. Allowing one =
hash per block allows for what I call &quot;fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining=
&quot; (BMM), which as far as I know was first proposed by Paul Storc for D=
rivechains.[0]</div><div><br></div><div>If only one hash is allowed per blo=
ck, then those who wish to utilize the hash will have to out-bid each other=
 (&quot;fee-bidding&quot;). This hash can then be used to create another ch=
ain (&quot;merged-mining&quot;), while the Bitcoin miners do not have to be=
 aware of this other chain (&quot;blind&quot;). There are also non fee-bidd=
ing variants that function e.g. by burning or locking up bitcoins in order =
to create consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>As it turns out, fee-bidding =
BMM can be achieved using only a covenant structure for transactions.[1]

 You&#39;d have to create a sequence of transactions (one per block), to wh=
ich a hash can be attached. These can simply be pre-signed transactions (re=
quires forgetting a key, but the worst that can happen is that the chain ha=
lts), or an actual covenant using either sighash_anyprevout or op_ctv (we d=
on&#39;t have these yet) =E2=80=93 no specialized soft fork (or hard fork) =
is required.</div><div><br></div><div>You might think any decentralized alt=
ernative chain requires an altcoin, but this can also be avoided with a per=
petual one-way peg.[2] For more details, I recommend watching this video of=
 the full concept, which I call &quot;spacechains&quot;:=C2=A0<a href=3D"ht=
tps://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg">https://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg</a></div><div><br>=
</div><div>-- Ruben Somsen</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>[0] Blind Merged-Mining for Drivechains:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://git=
hub.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki">https://github.com/bit=
coin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki</a></div><div><br></div><div>[1] F=
ee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining with covenants: <a href=3D"https://gist.gith=
ub.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5">https://gist.github.co=
m/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5</a></div><div><br></div><div=
>[2] Perpetual one-way peg:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen=
/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-sidechains-the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2=
f8ac302">https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-si=
dechains-the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2f8ac302</a></div></div><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 16, 20=
21 at 9:33 PM Kostas Karasavvas via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr">Hi Christopher,<div><br></div><div>Some feedback:</div><div><b=
r></div><div>&quot;OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data.&quot;</div><di=
v>It is 80 bytes.</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;A future BIP proposing suc=
h a layer two protocol will be forthcoming.&quot;</div><div>So what is this=
 BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This BIP should be th=
e one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one root OP_RETURN subst=
itutes all the rest it should say how that would be done... where would the=
 merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust assumptions=C2=A0that we need =
to make, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;Objections to this proposal&qu=
ot; section</div><div>I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a go=
od thing of course.=C2=A0 My main objection with this proposal is that I do=
n&#39;t see a proposal. It seems like wishful thinking... if only we could =
substitute all the OP_RETURNs with one :-)</div><div><br></div><div>We have=
 to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure that the=
re are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users. Multisig=
 is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK, P2PKH, P2SH,=
 P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not good enough peop=
le would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>There are a multitude of L2&#39;s (kind-of) that do this &#39;aggre=
gation&#39; of data hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single=C2=
=A0merkle root per bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records =
(of thousand of users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tie=
rion, blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated severa=
l of those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain =
old OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust as=
sumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were prett=
y solid/useful for other use cases.</div><div><br></div><div>Unless the pro=
posed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really prohibit this L2 innova=
tion that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px=
 solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I have created a=
 BIP which can be found here:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/cgilliard/=
bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://github=
.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki</a><div><br></div>=
<div>I&#39;m sending this email to start the discussion regarding this prop=
osal. If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Chris</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>Konstantinos A. Karasavvas</div><div>Software A=
rchitect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
a href=3D"https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas" target=3D"_blank">https://twitte=
r.com/kkarasavvas</a><br></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000046772005c01cd908--