Sorry, I completely forgot about having submitted the BIP as I was busy at this time.
Thanks for the review.

Open Asset is actually not an abandoned project and is a protocol already used in production with multiple implementation.
Wallet: https://www.coinprism.com/
Implementation C#: https://github.com/NicolasDorier/NBitcoin with heavy documentation (https://programmingblockchain.gitbooks.io/programmingblockchain/content/other_types_of_asset/colored_coins.html)
Implementation Ruby: https://github.com/haw-itn/openassets-ruby/
Usage stats: http://opreturn.org/

Concerning whether or not we can put my name in the BIP, I'll ask the original author that I know personally.

> Quite a bit ugly, giving a meaning to an input's pubkey script like that.
> But more problematically: how can this work with other pubkey scripts?
> Particularly relevant now that this old script format is being deprecated.
> Another possible problem is that I don't see a way to provably guarantee an
> asset issuance is final.

Yes, with open asset it is not possible to do provably limited issuance.
The scriptPubKey can be anything, not necessarily P2PK.
If you can spend the scriptPubkey, then you are the issuer.

> And the assets attached to its inputs are destroyed? Or?

Correct, if you spend a colored output incorrectly, it is effectively destroyed.

> Is it intentional that the first case is "parsable", and the second "valid"?
> I think these need to be better specified; for example, it is not so clear how
> to reach if the OAP version number is something other than 1: is that
> parsable? valid?

The terminology is correct we are parsing PUSHDATA, if there is a parsable pushdata, the output is considered valid.
If there is multiple valid output, then we take the first one.

> What determines the asset id? How would one issue and/or transfer multiple
> asset ids in the same transaction?

You can't issue more than one asset type in a transaction. (as the asset issued is defined by the scriptPubKey of the first input)
For multiple transfer it is possible, imagine a transaction with the following 3 inputs and 6 outputs:

Inputs: {0, 10a, 20b}
Outputs: {5, OP_RETURN; 7; 3; 11; 9)

Inputs1: 0
Inputs2: Enqueue 10a in the queue ( {10a} )
Input3: Enqueue 20b in the queue ( { 20b, 10a} )

Output1: Before OP_RETURN, so is issuance whose color is defined by the scriptPubKey of Input1. (say c)
Output2: No color (marker)
Output3: Dequeue 7a ( {20b, 3a} ), color output with a.
Output4: Dequeue 3a ( {20b} ), color output with a
Output5: Dequeue 11b ( {9b} ), color output with b
Output5: Dequeue 9b ( {0} ), color output with b

Finally, outputs color are
Outputs: {5c, OP_RETURN; 7a; 3a; 11b; 9b)

> What if I have a transaction with 5 outputs, the marker output at position 3,
> and all 4 other outputs are to receive assets? Does the marker output get
> skipped in the list (ie, the list is 4 elements long) or must it be set to
> zero quantity (ie, the list is 5 elements long)?

Marker output is skipped (explained in the example)

> Addresses are not used for spending bitcoins, only for receiving them. The way
> this BIP uses inputs' pubkey script is extremely unusual and probably a bad
> idea.

Actually there is no "issuance address", just the AssetId is defined by the scriptPubKey of the issuer.

> As I understand it, this would require address reuse to setup, which is not
> supported behaviour and insecure.

Yes, it requires address reuse for issuing.

> Won't an older client then accidentally destroy assets?

Correct. Actually we prevent users sending asset to wallet which does not support OA via another address scheme described in another document (https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol/blob/master/address-format.mediawiki)

As said, Open Asset is not a draft proposal and is already used in the wild since 2014. We can't easily modify the protocol by now for improving it.

PS: https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol/blob/master/specification.mediawiki is more readable than a mail.

Nicolas,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:14 PM, James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm curious to hear the answers to the questions Luke asked earlier. I also read through the documentation and wasn't convinced it was thought out well enough to actually build something on top of, but there's no reason it can't get a number as a work-in-progress.

I hope it does continue to get worked on, though. The lack of response or discussion worries me that it might become an abandoned project.


On Tue, Jul 5, 2016, 18:32 Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 05, 2016 5:46:36 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:53:04AM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:50:26 AM Nicolas Dorier via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > >   Author: Flavien Charlon <flavien@charlon.net>
>
> What's the status of this BIP? Will it be assigned?

I was waiting for clarification on the Author thing, but Nicholas hasn't
responded yet. I am unaware of any reason NOT to assign it, and there appear
to be no objections, so let's call it BIP 160.

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev