From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A70AC004D for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 00:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B82C85F9A for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 00:36:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1FqvrBEFk-fy for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 00:36:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB0C85F98 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 00:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 00:36:08 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1596328571; bh=0HxOG7AQO2k95VPQhlWm0CdG3cw7Ut44eNejk06mA2Y=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=T6jI9LBKqHQBjxmvhhPuS9613UccjRJiaAeAPsVppSFxYt5nge+NubyrZQabKkzTI 2MNVzXHLkqOZf5tELba3uejc6fr7SiHPyQbhHWVHvIrE5MDeldiPNOid7QzKIglBkW UWAZ2jaTstorPI/poRa9HwVOmtsd5pNuLo7MjYA8= To: Mike Brooks , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <1cxOISncF4dES_Ijm5FJUhwUAzBupnLPiv3qnU20as76zMMhVyggkg1hphq4ehuqEFK_H88TBbfI2pKbLWzzx7E6kOUXeC-yOcfrOkg3uAY=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smaller Transactions with PubRef 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, 02 Aug 2020 00:36:15 -0000 Good morning Mike, Hard NAK. The responses to the original posting already pointed out important problem= s with this: * Encourages address reuse, hurting fungibility and privacy. * Prevents pruning, since access to previous blocks must always be availabl= e in order to validate. * Optimized implementation requires creating yet another index to previous = block data, increasing requirements on fullnodes. * Requires SCRIPT to be re-evaluated on transactions arriving in newblocks= , to protect against reorgs of the chaintip, and in particular `OP_PUBREF` = references to near the chaintip. None of these issues have been addressed in your current proposal. The proposal looks at clients only, without considering what validators hav= e to implement in order to validate new blocks with this opcode. Regards, ZmnSCPxj