public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christopher Gilliard <christopher.gilliard@gmail.com>
To: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:12:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK=nyAxfAY7Ob64XR+5E6uSv+0BcUsuVZUzNbNZBcUnRf1XY9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABE6yHscUPAcyK58DvqhOnxSOoPMBAy9aMUmReJYSkBit-Mekg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3247 bytes --]

Thanks for the feedback. Will update the 40 bytes to 80 bytes (40 bytes was
the previous value, but it has since been updated to 80 so that's correct).
Regarding the L2 proposal. I think the BIPs I am working on will address
your questions and I'm hoping to have two more out early next week so
please stay tuned. I'm open to merging those BIPs into this BIP or
vice-versa, but for the sake of making things more readable I broke them
down into several BIPs for the time being.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:15 PM Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> Some feedback:
>
> "OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data."
> It is 80 bytes.
>
> "A future BIP proposing such a layer two protocol will be forthcoming."
> So what is this BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This
> BIP should be the one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one root
> OP_RETURN substitutes all the rest it should say how that would be done...
> where would the merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust
> assumptions that we need to make, etc.
>
> "Objections to this proposal" section
> I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a good thing of course.
> My main objection with this proposal is that I don't see a proposal. It
> seems like wishful thinking... if only we could substitute all the
> OP_RETURNs with one :-)
>
> We have to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure
> that there are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users.
> Multisig is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK,
> P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not good
> enough people would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.
>
> There are a multitude of L2's (kind-of) that do this 'aggregation' of data
> hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single merkle root per
> bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records (of thousand of
> users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tierion,
> blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated several of
> those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain old
> OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust
> assumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were
> pretty solid/useful for other use cases.
>
> Unless the proposed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really prohibit
> this L2 innovation that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I have created a BIP which can be found here:
>> https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki
>>
>> I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal.
>> If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Konstantinos A. Karasavvas
> Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
> https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4589 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-16 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-16  7:45 [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-16 13:56 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-04-16 15:34   ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-16 15:55     ` Andrew Poelstra
2021-04-16 23:52     ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-04-17  3:57       ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-17 15:50         ` Peter Todd
2021-04-17 16:57           ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-16 13:59 ` Clark Moody
2021-04-16 15:33   ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-16 16:32 ` Jeremy
2021-04-16 17:05   ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-16 18:00     ` Jeremy
2021-04-16 19:15 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2021-04-16 20:12   ` Christopher Gilliard [this message]
2021-04-17  7:41     ` Kostas Karasavvas
2021-04-16 20:30   ` Ruben Somsen
2021-04-16 21:09     ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-20  1:23     ` yanmaani
2021-04-20  8:45       ` Zach Greenwood
2021-04-20 17:12         ` Christopher Gilliard
2021-04-20 19:07       ` Ruben Somsen
2021-05-03  5:17         ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-04 12:51           ` Ruben Somsen
2021-04-20  1:22 ` yanmaani

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='CAK=nyAxfAY7Ob64XR+5E6uSv+0BcUsuVZUzNbNZBcUnRf1XY9Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=christopher.gilliard@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kkarasavvas@gmail.com \
    /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