diff options
| author | ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> | 2022-04-06 00:43:23 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-04-06 00:43:31 +0000 |
| commit | e942da60f2e4701afdfa7c8fb751ddf3e3866f67 (patch) | |
| tree | ff7c698b359bfc9c4aabbc6e8311c946aac331ff | |
| parent | 6e327053ee8fea07411bc3a1643c57a844cc061d (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-e942da60f2e4701afdfa7c8fb751ddf3e3866f67.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-e942da60f2e4701afdfa7c8fb751ddf3e3866f67.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taro: A Taproot Asset Representation Overlay
| -rw-r--r-- | c7/6874028f7cbdf237361c832be0562d403575ca | 121 |
1 files changed, 121 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c7/6874028f7cbdf237361c832be0562d403575ca b/c7/6874028f7cbdf237361c832be0562d403575ca new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7ebb9a407 --- /dev/null +++ b/c7/6874028f7cbdf237361c832be0562d403575ca @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52EAC0012 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:43:31 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D59F408CC + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:43:31 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.599 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, + RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] + autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id DxOvLEf4Bys0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:43:30 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch + [185.70.40.130]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EA81402AA + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:43:30 +0000 (UTC) +Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:43:23 +0000 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; + s=protonmail; t=1649205807; + bh=O3UcWMQuHkZBVFJ+UcX8Duf4AotaToGXLKo28EpvIEQ=; + h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: + References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: + Message-ID; + b=JvJJVY/uKDMY9HtP73JSM/2YZ7290g5HHxcffSs11uUNckSPkeD5LCVHwSKYQbI6q + aEQndZVbFp3BV6dBmC9Gu8ow/NoHUflW0PaMGBi6JOfIipt18rcCYA7+HUqeGUs5f5 + 3AF059N+K6fP/hVtAWBZ7UF1Fyt2fatq6XLGLQLT+WmHm8ytbT2QrFQHpSf9pIWpMS + nYmHrzmVY09452kP6yon/izAFfZqLeA2F3cxZrzL4Aa49VIHQhExAbOfc52JoPRITB + EK4jBI+FL/uDm5oZyxeKGsd7/WCarJAv5AzLJ7vdAVMfTRNT8Rmiwq6qfmIIQEJSuc + MsUEQyYXdKciA== +To: "vjudeu@gazeta.pl" <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <lecHK-Gt-prJf9W_9w1Ps6NWo8akVHYQWHEVbJ0Jdf89JhEmDO-u6y4_TXmtViv6t59svUdg2ACUfzBmFn58yEbL-eRpuS5ag5nDAR8u6Vg=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <160141998-7e37e8b4e29d41a79eddfe20e9b8c75f@pmq4v.m5r2.onet> +References: <160141998-7e37e8b4e29d41a79eddfe20e9b8c75f@pmq4v.m5r2.onet> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taro: A Taproot Asset Representation Overlay +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:43:31 -0000 + +Good morning vjudeu, + +> When I see more and more proposals like this, where things are commited t= +o Taproot outputs, then I think we should start designing "miner-based comm= +itments". If someone is going to make a Bitcoin transaction and add a commi= +tment for zero cost, just by tweaking some Taproot public key, then it is a= + benefit for the network, because then it is possible to get more things wi= +th no additional bytes. Instead of doing "transaction-only", people can do = +"transaction+commitment" for the same cost, that use case is positive. +> +> But if someone is going to make a Bitcoin transaction only to commit thin= +gs, where in other case that person would make no transaction at all, then = +I think we should have some mechanism for "miner-based commitments" that wo= +uld allow making commitments in a standardized way. We always have one coin= +base transaction for each block, it is consensus rule. So, by tweaking sing= +le public key in the coinbase transaction, it is possible to fit all commit= +ments in one tweaked key, and even make it logarithmic by forming a tree of= + commitments. +> +> I think we cannot control user-based commitments, but maybe we should sta= +ndardize miner-based commitments, for example to have a sorted merkle tree = +of commitments. Then, it would be possible to check if some commitment is a= + part of that tree or not (if it is always sorted, then it is present at so= +me specified position or not, so by forming SPV-proof we can quickly prove,= + if some commitment is or is not a part of some miner Taproot commitment). + +You might consider implementing `OP_BRIBE` from Drivechains, then. + +Note that if you *want* to have some data committed on the blockchain, you = +*have to* pay for the privilege of doing so --- miners are not obligated to= + put a commitment to *your* data on the coinbase for free. +Thus, any miner-based commitment needs to have a mechanism to offer payment= +s to miners to include your commitment. + +You might as well just use a transaction, and not tell miners that you want= + to commit data using some tweak of the public key (because the miners migh= +t then be induced to censor such commitments). + +In short: there is no such thing as "other case that person would make no t= +ranscation at all", because you have to somehow bribe miners to include the= + commitment to your data, and you might as well use existing mechanisms (tr= +ansactions that implicitly pay fees) for your data commitment, and get bett= +er censorship-resistance and privacy. + +Nothing really prevents any transaction-based scheme from having multiple u= +sers that aggregate their data (losing privacy but aggregating their fees) = +to make a sum commitment and just make a single transaction that pays for t= +he privilege of committing to the sum commitment. + +Regards, +ZmnSCPxj + |