1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BDBC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A548D400E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dtrt.org
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 rsAsD0rL3Cua
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (newmail.dtrt.org
[IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe7b:78d1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD3B400B5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dtrt.org;
s=20201208; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:
Subject:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:
List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=nkyMjWBZR67GRm2dZSi+IqnZk4APlU1Du1hsMiCHWlw=; b=ao3G5ty/jPfjEODbNaBd+t7PrO
+3OWREaDo0dGAlQNKqlV020Z5Q2zk/WgEFYKZvb7hSOtQYZ2dTAg7iWzzdtIV+V4P4jlk49SADVAE
0gkA96LnXYk7Wr/3lsbz81lGTG0irLLJIFTj1zayj4DMc+/rK6yqNyBYMiII7oeiYYr4=;
Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.92)
(envelope-from <dave@dtrt.org>)
id 1la0Mt-000382-NB; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:17:31 -1000
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:15:50 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20210423181550.xri2ravlwfe3vpc6@ganymede>
References: <CAD5xwhj7jXSrdbfFJTYw-UzGgZTF0kz-Vr61juF0gJGLf2EKqQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yaxs7lrk47x4mwnh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhj7jXSrdbfFJTYw-UzGgZTF0kz-Vr61juF0gJGLf2EKqQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Motivating Address type for OP_RETURN
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: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:34 -0000
--yaxs7lrk47x4mwnh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 08:46:07AM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Script is technically "too wide" a type as what I really want is to
> only return coins with known output types.
I don't understand this concern. If script is too wide a type, then
OP_RETURN being a scriptPubKey of arbitrary length up to almost a
million bytes is also going to be too wide, right?
> 1) Should it be human readable & checksummed or encoded?
It should absolutely not be human readable in the sense of being
meaningful to humans. We've seen in the past that tools and sites that
display OP_RETURN data as ASCII encourage people to put text in the
block chain that is offensive and illegal. This puts people running
nodes at risk of social and legal intervention. Bitcoin's
premissionless nature means we can't stop people from creating such
problems, but we can lower the risk by having our tools default to
meaningless representations of OP_RETURN data.
The best advice I've seen is to display OP_RETURN data in hex. It's
still possible to say things like "dead beef" with that, but significant
abuse is hard. This will, of course, make even 80 byte OP_RETURN
"addresses" very long.
> 2) Should it have a fixed length of max 40-80 bytes or should we support
> arbitrary length strings?
If it doesn't support the fell range, somebody's just going to complain
later and there will have to be a v2 address.
> 3) Should it be possible (i.e., from core) to pay into such an OP_RETURN or
> should we categorize OP_RETURNS as a non-payable address type (and just use
> it for parsing blockdata)
I don't think including arbitrary data in the block chain is something
that's currently useful for typical end users, and applications that
want to use OP_RETURN with Bitcoin Core can already call
create(psbt|rawtransaction) with the `data` field, so I'd be mildly
opposed in including such a feature in Bitcoin Core's wallet. If at
least a few other wallets add the feature to pay OP_RETURN "addresses"
and it seems popular, then I'm wrong and so I would probably then change
my position.
Regarding "parsing block data", I don't think there's any need to change
Bitcoin Core's current representation of OP_RETURN outputs (which is
just showing the hex-encoded script in RPC output). For any program
needing OP_RETURN output, hex format is going to be a the next best
thing to getting it in raw binary. Any other address format is going to
be equal or more work.
Additionally, as mentioned in the other thread about OP_RETURN this
week, increasing transaction fees should increasingly push uses of
OP_RETURN off the network or into more efficient constructions, so it
doesn't seem warranted to me to spend a lot of time trying to optimize
how we use it when we'll be using it less and less over time.
-Dave
--yaxs7lrk47x4mwnh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=EU8a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--yaxs7lrk47x4mwnh--
|
