From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB83C002B for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1ED4010E for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:11:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 5F1ED4010E Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blockstream-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@blockstream-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=bHM/ictX X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UDCEp_vIFSxl for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:11:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 32F64400F8 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F64400F8 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id ge21-20020a17090b0e1500b002308aac5b5eso2306511pjb.4 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2023 16:11:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-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=mEJNL1yBtLiAIcX+VONPCB8EWv9jCz1nibRVZovVd0I=; b=bHM/ictXDBtnAHaZY1LPtfm+SB7qWlzm8XreXmY5HtDxnCN1AZ+iGW8Bbc7W5SmqUW i8Ujo8jIFV8K4Byu5zSsgQKCcKf8jnjLfxCzUO3G3Gizonklh+uC27Nh2A4stzQklN4i VgEAzvH5ij3aMVgCHH759XDafg5Xe2ZxmJU5b9bi/5NZzlmX30M8VPdRsG115RQTM9OV QgEYO/le+J1+QqbOjCApbex8K+mLuSAj0h+uxwCIN7ewSM7MT0eu7HyQxBMxzETrGP9p 78GFRDOtEki9KPjbct/nUiO3AaSCpRaTeQ5jnIFHVpSqAwUGhvONSkPuHNQbYgTglOLN 5t/Q== 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=mEJNL1yBtLiAIcX+VONPCB8EWv9jCz1nibRVZovVd0I=; b=CASISBrxxY/4mlb8SjoSxgfqGHVa165KlHz8t+QB80nbQbbO4U2aiDUqvU9R6S5J/c HTQuCDXtShK5zjEqjsDd/wtmoxNyDgV3eC42IHGXL15LdC82+MLl43nYWx9tUiwbHW2l qbwrIvQdW8it1oOiIhEpiIP/D+eyp7VOQEtKEjJZypywSVdlPszTgt05Y5tGriSSXP0h MwX2QZrN/0k1MlKJ648QMcFVDpur3CwEfpKxn4Gp8w307eZP6LPRUSljhk9iQejMyjKV VTq852Ex+2ztSy+Tdj3rOup36TvKUU2gOcwIgW2Oo9yJq9VJCawYCXrV/crV1lkslW/g om1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXfV3saOWKZfRb/mxwG2Lrp5+YYnJHIquulxk8YLwcD+cYulRtX 1yKZxOGv/E9aN+NSCbQdQNQJSd4TG9jCPWEcTF8tsg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8ysvbj0IY7rNvDjBq1F6HFssYZxpWqZOSmFgKIL+8y+HLdQ88MXzKI6u3+2tlVSl1aCVRFOwkPw+zqLBm4fjA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:11cd:b0:198:a1e8:7cf7 with SMTP id q13-20020a17090311cd00b00198a1e87cf7mr3362927plh.28.1675555905556; Sat, 04 Feb 2023 16:11:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57f780b1-f262-9394-036c-70084320e9cf@peersm.com> <3d00aacb-585d-f875-784d-34352860d725@peersm.com> <230265ee-c3f8-dff3-9192-f0c8dc4d913c@peersm.com> In-Reply-To: <230265ee-c3f8-dff3-9192-f0c8dc4d913c@peersm.com> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 19:11:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: Aymeric Vitte Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d6b2505f3e8c2c4" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 00:11:47 -0000 --0000000000008d6b2505f3e8c2c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey, there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper to use witness data. Where that crossover point is depends on the finer details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some reasonable assumptions. Such a calculation could form the basis of a reasonable OP_RETURN proposal. I don't know if it would be persuasive, but it would at least be coherent. On Sat., Feb. 4, 2023, 18:17 Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev, < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I don't know, what number would you advise? When I made the > bitcoin-transactions nodejs module some years ago the limit (from the > specs) was 512B > > It's not a fork, super easy to do > > And necessary because bitcoin on ground of I don't know what rule > allowing the IF/ENDIF "unlimited" storage just mimics ethereum for the > worse, and is again quite dubious to use > > > Le 04/02/2023 =C3=A0 23:18, Christopher Allen a =C3=A9crit : > > 520 because that is a similar limit in taproot? Some multiple of > > hash+signature+metadata to satisfy others (that still might not be > > satisfied by any choice). > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000008d6b2505f3e8c2c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in= the script pubkey, there is a crossover point in data size where it will s= imply be cheaper to use witness data.=C2=A0 Where that crossover point is d= epends on the finer details of the overhead of the two methods, but you cou= ld make some reasonable assumptions.=C2=A0 Such a calculation could form th= e basis of a reasonable OP_RETURN proposal.=C2=A0 I don't know if it wo= uld be persuasive, but it would at least be coherent.

On Sat., Feb. 4, 2023, 1= 8:17 Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev, <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<= br>
I don't know, what number would= you advise? When I made the
bitcoin-transactions nodejs module some years ago the limit (from the
specs) was 512B

It's not a fork, super easy to do

And necessary because bitcoin on ground of I don't know what rule
allowing the IF/ENDIF "unlimited" storage just mimics ethereum fo= r the
worse, and is again quite dubious to use


Le 04/02/2023 =C3=A0 23:18, Christopher Allen a =C3=A9crit :
> 520 because that is a similar limit in taproot? Some multiple of
> hash+signature+metadata to satisfy others (that still might not be
> satisfied by any choice).


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000008d6b2505f3e8c2c4--