From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:02:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9pxAdm3kO1rr2kU@camus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:07:16PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>
> On January 31, 2023 7:46:32 PM EST, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >All other things being equal, which is better if you need to place a
> >64-bytes into the Bitcoin blockchain? A traditional OP_RETURN or a spent
> >taproot transaction such as:
> >
> >OP_FALSE
> >OP_IF
> >OP_PUSH my64bytes
> >OP_ENDIF
>
> What's wrong with OpPush <data> OpDrop?
>
This is a technical nit, but the reason is that <data> is limited to 520
bytes (and I believe, 80 bytes by standardness in Taproot), so if you
are pushing a ton of data and need multiple pushes, it's more efficient
to use FALSE IF ... ENDIF since you avoid the repeated DROPs.
--
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
The sun is always shining in space
-Justin Lewis-Webster
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 0:46 [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 2:07 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 2:22 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 8:36 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-01 12:51 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 14:02 ` Andrew Poelstra [this message]
2023-02-02 11:22 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 11:45 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 11:49 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 12:24 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-01 12:59 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 13:25 ` Rijndael
2023-02-03 11:15 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-03 18:47 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 14:11 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-04 17:01 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 18:54 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 20:55 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 22:18 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 23:09 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:04 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 11:40 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 12:06 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 12:47 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:11 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-05 2:01 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 18:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-12 16:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 18:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 19:59 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2023-02-17 10:56 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 18:06 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-02-17 12:49 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-18 18:38 ` Aymeric Vitte
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=Y9pxAdm3kO1rr2kU@camus \
--to=apoelstra@wpsoftware.net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd.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