From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C76CE1 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 00:56:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3417A1A0 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 00:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id f12-v6so10703143wrv.12 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:56:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=IWjkxe+RWV1NyjlmKSYMwLTLikiITRgg1lRvRxTWpw0=; b=fcpJgivk0RconXGEysHTW8Fb70BguvlrSWASb8II57FCzFhIEfyH7SVw/88Tb7ht5r xkOKN12FJl04y/GPrbifJVF//EbDPpy/D5ohH9QT+Bq0HHI75SomEX1RBCsl3EbfVI/E HPrdFpqvHNkzxcGKaZH3RUh7RX6gfedEzNqins0lQ56PXY/BshTP37+b7PzOMHEPCYc4 fdYKz2Lm8NiBi5MlBA/wNp7Z/uegYtcNSKR6vU65gSeEKY4M5EWP/0zWn2oYLyoWapoV Ul+PlzCjk9edhymtwRBWPgkgpxFjtvA95PhLkRHiPOp8e7pUF0KFJgQjYZljHZA4xrmR V9/A== 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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IWjkxe+RWV1NyjlmKSYMwLTLikiITRgg1lRvRxTWpw0=; b=fZ45sK/MvNb2H1oEBLlX08uO1M7xaem3rYaAnqJUdR2/TWnkahNfHySvKPh2I/Lpq/ WJBvhU0fcALirE0J7hM0k0OsKjhA747ECDKkdhFiwi27Uc1Iw4XKw7Lb48NgHAQOYfNc T/yEDQ6ctqEqiQnu31D97L7YS25TIOjUxwz0u9DUP/yDgQgqWIeanTYIaZmyldbhsFTv Na+Lb98Hf1QXjH4ftP0S5FgTU/c1jwCNM8gwacyQU0hGAJ8dTT4oh0EUF7O4XpLRcYL3 lzLmfRa80X32oB/9gwkrWnXC/lCwtEvrOHoNhVnF35W5tHIXetYbAop0vWDcGbCuQcXY SvDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFZ8ogeA51pdPT97KPfWUOKZUJFa7bOH/qAsoZfaoO9KpoINoEM frwPpEVDByk1tFMntQmmQNUG8ZBX7/wlqWIzRLPc/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpei9xT4yQasBmi2MKKxC4JH4fhH0EdMpLNbIgukUNJs84L9fw/dzH6sjzSVpWfvxRrSelWe1p5oA4wa3/PT3BI= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9b11:: with SMTP id b17-v6mr8047157wrc.119.1533516971786; Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:56:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: lautaro.dragan@gmail.com From: Lautaro Dragan Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 21:55:59 -0300 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 01:47:21 +0000 Cc: Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:56:14 -0000 --0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Peter for your prompt reply. And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean? Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little while until we can address that issue. Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow? El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd escribi=C3=B3: > > > On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >Hi everyone, > > > >My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et > >. At Po.et we > >use > >colored coins > >< > https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5= e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110 > > > >to > >store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET". > > > >I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin wiki > > that > >*protocols > >wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin > >Improvement Proposals process*. > > > >That entry seems to have changed recently > >, no longer > >stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been able > >to > >find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of > >thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here. > > > >Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix? > > It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resistance > and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefix > for technical reasons. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > --0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.=C2=A0

And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to= differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be = for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean?

Still, a prefix is something we may have to live wi= th for a little while until we can address that issue.=C2=A0

=
Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follo= w?




El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Pe= ter Todd <pete@petertodd.org&g= t; escribi=C3=B3:


On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.e= t
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#= OP_RETURN_prefixes>. At Po.et we
>use
>colored coins
><https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c9= 05bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.= ts#L101-L110>
>to
>store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET".
>
>I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin w= iki
><https://en.bitcoin.it/w= /index.php?title=3DOP_RETURN&oldid=3D62560> that
>*protocols
>wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin
>Improvement Proposals process*.
>
>That entry seems to have changed recently
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#= OP_RETURN_prefixes>, no longer
>stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been a= ble
>to
>find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of=
>thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here. >
>Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?

It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resi= stance and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require= a prefix for technical reasons.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--0000000000005c46c10572b9bec4--