From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Motivating Address type for OP_RETURN
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 01:37:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pEDmHctqx7XEqGO5--au7YmLpOnUvf3qhxbatujFJtvjvA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210424215900.nufcy6uzjzompdbs@ganymede>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5961 bytes --]
> 1. More data allowed in scriptSig, e.g. 80 byte payload (81 actually, I
> think) for OP_RETURN versus 40 bytes for a BIP141 payload.
> Maximizing payload size better amortizes the overhead cost of the
> containing transaction and the output's nValue field.
In order to reduce the footprint of data stored on-chain, could it perhaps
be beneficial to introduce some non-transaction data structure in order to
facilitate storing data on-chain such that it maximizes payload size
vs. on-chain size, while at the same time ensuring that using such data
structure is (almost) as expensive in use per payload-byte as the
next-cheapest alternative (which now is using OP_RETURN) with
help of weight units?
Zac
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:01 AM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 01:05:25PM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
> > I meant the type itself is too wide, not the length of the value. As in
> > Script can represent things we know nothing about.
>
> I guess I still don't understand your concern, then. If script can
> represent things we know nothing about, then script commitments such as
> P2SH, P2WSH, and P2TR also represent things we know nothing about. All
> you know is what container format they used. For P2PK, bare multisig,
> OP_RETURN, and other direct uses of scriptPubKey, that container format
> is "bare" (or whatever you want to call it).
>
> > Btw: According to... Oh wait... You?
> >
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35878/is-there-a-maximum-size-of-a-scriptsig-scriptpubkey
> > the max size is 10k bytes.
>
> I'm not sure what I knew at the time I wrote that answer, but the 10,000
> byte limit is only applied when EvalScript is run, which only happens
> when the output is being spent. I've appended to this email a
> demonstration of creating a 11,000 byte OP_RETURN on regtest (I tried
> 999,000 bytes but ran into problems with bash's maximum command line
> length limit). I've updated the answer to hopefully make it more
> correct.
>
> > Is it possible/easy to, say, using bech32m make an inappropriate message
> in
> > the address? You'd have to write the message, then see what it decodes to
> > without checking, and then re encode? I guess this is worse than hex?
>
> If someone wants to abuse bech32m, I suspect they'll do it the same way
> people have abused base58check[1], by using the address format's
> alphabet directly. E.g., you compose your message using only
> the characters qpzry9x8gf2tvdw0s3jn54khce6mua7l and then append
> the appropriate checksum.
>
> [1]
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH%C2%B2#The_problem:_storing_data_in_hashes
>
> > But it seems this is a general thing... If you wanted an inappropriate
> > message you could therefore just use bech32m addressed outputs.
>
> Yes, and people have done that with base58check. IsStandard OP_RETURN
> attempts to minimize that abuse by being cheaper in two ways:
>
> 1. More data allowed in scriptSig, e.g. 80 byte payload (81 actually, I
> think) for OP_RETURN versus 40 bytes for a BIP141 payload.
> Maximizing payload size better amortizes the overhead cost of the
> containing transaction and the output's nValue field.
>
> 2. Exemption from the dust limit. If you use a currently defined
> address type, the nValue needs to pay at least a few thousand nBTC
> (few hundred satoshis), about $0.15 USD minimum at $50k USD/BTC. For
> OP_RETURN, the nValue can be 0, so there's no additional cost beyond
> normal transaction relay fees.
>
> Although someone creating an OP_RETURN up to ~1 MB with miner support
> can bypass the dust limit, the efficiency advantage remains no matter
> what.
>
> > One of the nice things is that the current psbt interface uses a blind
> > union type whereby the entires in an array are either [address, amount]
> or
> > ["data", hex]. Having an address type would allow more uniform handling,
> > which is convenient for strongly typed RPC bindings (e.g. rust bitcoin
> uses
> > a hashmap of address to amount so without a patch you can't create op
> > returns).
>
> I don't particularly care how the data in PSBTs are structured. My mild
> opposition was to adding code to the wallet that exposes everyday users
> to OP_RETURN addresses.
>
> > I would much prefer to not have to do this in a custom way, as opposed
> > to a way which is defined in a standard manner across all software
> > (after all, that's the point of standards).
>
> I'm currently +0.1 on the idea of an address format of OP_RETURN, but I
> want to make sure this isn't underwhelmingly motivated or will lead to a
> resurgence of block chain graffiti.
>
> -Dave
>
> ## Creating an 11,000 byte OP_RETURN
>
> $ bitcoind -daemon -regtest -acceptnonstdtxn
> Bitcoin Core starting
>
> $ bitcoin-cli -regtest -generate 101
> {
> "address": "bcrt1qh9uka5z040vx2rc3ltz3tpwmq4y2mt0eufux9r",
> "blocks": [
> [...]
> }
>
> $ bitcoin-cli -regtest send '[{"data": "'$( dd if=/dev/zero bs=1000
> count=11 | xxd -g0 -p | tr -d '\n' )'"}]'
> 11+0 records in
> 11+0 records out
> 11000 bytes (11 kB, 11 KiB) copied, 0.000161428 s, 68.1 MB/s
> {
> "txid":
> "ef3d396c7d21914a2c308031c9ba1857694fc33df71f5a349b409ab3406dab51",
> "complete": true
> }
>
> $ bitcoin-cli -regtest getrawmempool
> [
> "ef3d396c7d21914a2c308031c9ba1857694fc33df71f5a349b409ab3406dab51"
> ]
>
> $ bitcoin-cli -regtest -generate 1
> {
> "address": "bcrt1qlzjd90tkfkr09m867zxhte9rqd3t03wc5py5zh",
> "blocks": [
> "2986e9588c5bd26a629020b1ce8014d1f4ac9ac19106d216d3abb3a314c5604b"
> ]
> }
>
> $bitcoin-cli -regtest getblock
> 2986e9588c5bd26a629020b1ce8014d1f4ac9ac19106d216d3abb3a314c5604b 2 | jq
> .tx[1].txid
> "ef3d396c7d21914a2c308031c9ba1857694fc33df71f5a349b409ab3406dab51"
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7590 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-24 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 15:46 [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Motivating Address type for OP_RETURN Jeremy
2021-04-23 18:15 ` David A. Harding
2021-04-24 20:05 ` Jeremy
2021-04-24 21:59 ` David A. Harding
2021-04-24 22:29 ` Jeremy
2021-04-24 23:37 ` Zac Greenwood [this message]
2021-04-25 0:25 ` Jeremy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJ4-pEDmHctqx7XEqGO5--au7YmLpOnUvf3qhxbatujFJtvjvA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zachgrw@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dave@dtrt.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox