Hi Chris,I agree with all the points that were made by others. You should also be aware that layer two ideas like yours have already been explored, both by myself and others. Allowing one hash per block allows for what I call "fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining" (BMM), which as far as I know was first proposed by Paul Storc for Drivechains.[0]If only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize the hash will have to out-bid each other ("fee-bidding"). This hash can then be used to create another chain ("merged-mining"), while the Bitcoin miners do not have to be aware of this other chain ("blind"). There are also non fee-bidding variants that function e.g. by burning or locking up bitcoins in order to create consensus.As it turns out, fee-bidding BMM can be achieved using only a covenant structure for transactions.[1] You'd have to create a sequence of transactions (one per block), to which a hash can be attached. These can simply be pre-signed transactions (requires forgetting a key, but the worst that can happen is that the chain halts), or an actual covenant using either sighash_anyprevout or op_ctv (we don't have these yet) – no specialized soft fork (or hard fork) is required.You might think any decentralized alternative chain requires an altcoin, but this can also be avoided with a perpetual one-way peg.[2] For more details, I recommend watching this video of the full concept, which I call "spacechains": https://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg-- Ruben Somsen[0] Blind Merged-Mining for Drivechains: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki[1] Fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining with covenants: https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:33 PM Kostas Karasavvas via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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" sectionI 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. KarasavvasSoftware Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev