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
|
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C491EC0012
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7E640904
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl
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 lfZxgaA5f_Xn
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:32:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from smtpo106.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo106.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.149.159])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42DE540902
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:32:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq4v.m5r2.onet (pmq4v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.70])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4KLTxX2CXzz2K214d;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:32:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
t=1647714720; bh=dWJQ9vO+/slZj09iGq1Qwer/v2fitaMFgc1zcnUdlDk=;
h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From;
b=oJhZ1KEUB5hc3rwiqKOpXX6ZjGKQGGMoRyrex1x8MDeSl9SKY/2+hWmN5J3eo7LB7
jHSDQeoDr8Cb4YDC3ZA3gL8/rVxEryQteeFd3eKFSgZYZhvX0QX6Mq69nTFhIVcFSo
1V89sYn+AHIGiE5FzzfrNwi02cxdlJ/roILITWGo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [5.173.240.11] by pmq4v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:32:00 +0100
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <YjIqqv+0YTbl/fAL@petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:32:00 +0100
Message-Id: <159484190-6f2488890cf1a295d9a781253860f18d@pmq4v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.240.11;PL;2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:25:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_RETURN inside TapScript
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: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:32:10 -0000
> There are two use-cases for OP_RETURN: committing to data, and publishing=
data. Your proposal can only do the former, not the latter, and there are =
use-cases for both.
Only the former is needed. Pushing data on-chain is expensive and that kind=
of data is useful only to the transaction maker. Also, the latter can be p=
ushed on a separate chain (or even a separate layer that is not a chain at =
all).
Also note that since Taproot we have the latter: we can spend by TapScript =
and reveal some public key and tapbranches. It is possible to push more tha=
n 80 bytes in this way, so why direct OP_RETURN is needed, except for backw=
ard-compatibility? (for example in Segwit commitments)
There is only one problem with spending by TapScript, when it comes to publ=
ishing data: only the first item is the public key. If we could use public =
keys instead of tapbranch hashes, we could literally replace "OP_RETURN <co=
mmitment>" with "<tweakedPublicKey> <tweakedTapBranchKey1> <tweakedTapBranc=
hKey2> <tweakedTapBranchKey3> ... <tweakedTapBranchKeyN>". Then, we could u=
se unspendable public keys to push data, so OP_RETURN would be obsolete.
By the way, committing to data has a lot of use cases, for example the whol=
e idea of NameCoin could be implemented on such OP_RETURN's. Instead of cre=
ating some special transaction upfront, people could place some hidden comm=
itment and reveal that later. Then, there would be no need to produce any n=
ew coins out of thin air, because everything would be merge-mined by defaul=
t, providing Bitcoin-level Proof of Work protection all the time, 24/7/365.=
Then, people could store that revealed commitments on their own chain, jus=
t to keep track of who owns which name. And then, that network could easily=
turn on and off all Bitcoin features as they please. Lightning Network on =
NameCoin? No problem, even the same satoshis could be used to pay for domai=
ns!
On 2022-03-16 19:21:37 user Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 10:02:08AM +0100, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Since Taproot was activated, we no longer need separate OP_RETURN outputs=
to be pushed on-chain. If we want to attach any data to a transaction, we =
can create "OP_RETURN <anything>" as a branch in the TapScript. In this way=
, we can store that data off-chain and we can always prove that they are co=
nnected with some taproot address, that was pushed on-chain. Also, we can s=
tore more than 80 bytes for "free", because no such taproot branch will be =
ever pushed on-chain and used as an input. That means we can use "OP_RETURN=
<1.5 GB of data>", create some address having that taproot branch, and lat=
er prove to anyone that such "1.5 GB of data" is connected with our taproot=
address.
There are two use-cases for OP_RETURN: committing to data, and publishing d=
ata.
Your proposal can only do the former, not the latter, and there are use-cas=
es
for both.
-- =
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
|
