From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514FCC002B for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 02:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1815F40377 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 02:23:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1815F40377 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lifewithalacrity-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@lifewithalacrity-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=rdHK2+q8 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OSnGWnhxOlGo for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 02:23:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org E742D40584 Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E742D40584 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 02:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g14so17906269ljh.10 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:23:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifewithalacrity-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=e1RMPlUh2RBlOT6bM1YnGhKB7IJ1J3aZ7i2L9wAGZsc=; b=rdHK2+q8I52ZL6cLD7H1hBKTC9oMZbBBTuVz8cjJHk0xhv+soSb10b5ZLN/mmZ0NSj +JsKPipFiwQwpDNLPiw2KdmLXVqJhK1qdMZ9iRGAa7ydKdXSFWNqdezxFMby7cRcp1kw TUGjTacDM3agAgr+c2iOLJMZmRAiNL9kqc75E/JMLonvY79OGt9CIn/AZhZ1/r/setrk zTOyLI9f69BxS5rtUJbcf9NbA6oq4D2k7fX2Fli6gq01pbZKWjDkh/w5sPOK+AxbWi2H 1kJvtqb0XIlQfyF/tXgxs1ZJB6zUKa1J+tWmLP83VmTEIJ6pPZRJksxSkBlYa/eMXcS8 NN5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=e1RMPlUh2RBlOT6bM1YnGhKB7IJ1J3aZ7i2L9wAGZsc=; b=tER7gzIjXmrRwuWLagiS74lRAOpaIIzY/Zp0hRl1WrkdIFEWdtwKxYTqCH/aCZL08q 4LgJ3V/hCpcQ4qfZlINUoizmtnT/vBSLK9VT4zKRbYeplNLx+T6FJhufqqqpylxP/dGs abDr79qvbyoTMf9knet/YS5j82DacT5OyjEa+E2XvsrngDf6qtphq/yjYkh9GE9fdLjz 6oVr5FpH2UwuJFBGzrMSnw5pRWRVvbrPSzQaeFBmriPuKFES28Gj0XrVbnAVTgcweIp0 NKo5wO6tuvqFbEjCp8t8zSdhmWb+JjeRIbNbjM5lWPnFNKSF3jIdBzDdfWV94JowLZaJ t4+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX57PR5MvNyGIh9ExYSn8UtrsITydbk3Klxjyb5pKfp+ajUgY2F 5yWLd2CsZ7s0g3vOgOrhyVEo/ZPXDsBKa/3Ig0A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/GbpKGCvmiYRTNNY+38/x5hUr91TchpoeT8xGUygETSBTwKTju1zzoxcSORAqYrCq49/6bDtihS+wuteLZIWI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2cd:b0:290:4e11:a3b6 with SMTP id f13-20020a05651c02cd00b002904e11a3b6mr84369ljo.75.1675218186395; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:23:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org> From: Christopher Allen Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:22:29 -0800 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebe8f705f39a2094" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 02:29:38 +0000 Cc: Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev 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 02:23:10 -0000 --000000000000ebe8f705f39a2094 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I don't have a concrete proposal in mind, I'm just trying to understand various tradeoffs in post-taproot bitcoin in more detail. On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Peter Todd wrote: > > >OP_FALSE > >OP_IF > >OP_PUSH my64bytes > >OP_ENDIF > > What's wrong with OpPush OpDrop? > I'm not sure pro or con of either. I just saw that proposal above recently. > Also, it is incorrect to say that OpReturn outputs "clog UTXO space". The > whole point of OpReturn is to standardize a way to keep such outputs out of > the UTXO set. There is the 75% discount to using witness space. But > considering the size of a transaction as a whole using taproot instead of > OpReturn doesn't save much. > There are OP_RETURN tricks in production that do clog UTXO space. I was trying to avoid consideration of those by just saying to compare apples vs. apples, by presuming that any form of these transactions holding the 64 bytes is a spent transaction. Finally, _64_ bytes is more than a mere 32 byte commitment. What specific > use case do you actually have in mind here? Are you actually publishing > data, or simply committing to data? If the latter, you can use ECC > commitments and have no extra space at all. > I chose 64 bytes for this exercise, as I know there are tricks hiding 32 bytes as keys. As almost every op_return live out there is >32 bytes, I wanted an example that could be a signature, two hashes, a hash plus some metadata, etc. I also considered 96 bytes (for instance a hash and a signature), but as that doesn't fit into OP_RETURN's 80 bytes, that choice prohibits comparing the different approaches side-by-side. To come back to my question another way, if you ignore the people who say "never put anything except data facilitating coin transactions into the bitcoin blockchain", but if you also are not trying to use the bitcoin blockchain as a world database (ala ETH), what is the most pragmatic way to do so that minimizes any potential harm? The answer pre-taproot was OP_RETURN. What is it now? -- Christopher Allen --000000000000ebe8f705f39a2094 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't have a concrete proposal in mind, I'm= just trying to understand various tradeoffs in post-taproot bitcoin in mor= e detail.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);pa= dding-left:1ex">
>OP_FALSE
>OP_IF
>OP_PUSH my64bytes
>OP_ENDIF

What's wrong with OpPush <data> OpDrop?

=
I'm not sure pro or con of either. I just saw that proposal = above recently.
=C2=A0
Also, it is incorrec= t to say that OpReturn outputs "clog UTXO space". The whole point= of OpReturn is to standardize a way to keep such outputs out of the UTXO s= et. There is the 75% discount to using witness space. But considering the s= ize of a transaction as a whole using taproot instead of OpReturn doesn'= ;t save much.

There are OP_RETURN trick= s in production that do clog UTXO space. I was trying to avoid consideratio= n of those by just saying to compare apples vs. apples, by presuming that a= ny form of these transactions holding the 64 bytes is a spent transaction.<= /div>

Finally, _64_ bytes is more than a mer= e 32 byte commitment. What specific use case do you actually have in mind h= ere? Are you actually publishing data, or simply committing to data? If the= latter, you can use ECC commitments and have no extra space at all.

I chose 64 bytes for this exercise, as I know= there are tricks hiding 32 bytes as keys. As almost every op_return live o= ut there is >32 bytes, I wanted an example that could be a signature, tw= o hashes, a hash plus some metadata, etc. I also considered 96 bytes (for i= nstance a hash and a signature), but as that doesn't fit into OP_RETURN= 's 80 bytes, that choice prohibits comparing the different approaches s= ide-by-side.

To come back to my question another w= ay, if you ignore the people who say "never put anything except data f= acilitating coin transactions into the bitcoin blockchain", but if you= also are not trying to use the bitcoin blockchain as a world database (ala= ETH), what is the most pragmatic way to do so that minimizes any potential= harm? The answer pre-taproot was OP_RETURN. What is it now?

=
-- Christopher Allen
--000000000000ebe8f705f39a2094--