📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16
📝 Original message:>> But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is
not helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions
can always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy
multi-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the
private key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users
do this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is
problematic because such multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys are
indistinguishable from "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must
be kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which
are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO
set.
This sounds like a good justification to remove the legacy multi-signature
capabilities as well.
>> Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting
arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage
people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use
the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.
You can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you can make it
harder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doing what they
want to do.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Russell O'Connor <roconnor at blockstream.com>
wrote:
> Firstly, a minor point is that your proposal is a soft-fork, not a
> hard-fork.
>
> But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is not
> helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions can
> always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy
> multi-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the
> private key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users
> do this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is
> problematic because such multi-signature "data" scriptpubkeys are
> indistinguishable from "real" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must
> be kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which
> are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO
> set.
>
> Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting
> arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage
> people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use
> the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.
>
> Also, as it stands, fees already nudge various participants to consolidate
> their data in the way that you suggest they do.
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:32 AM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I have created a BIP which can be found here:
>> https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki
>>
>> I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal.
>> If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210416/ac1b035a/attachment.html>;
Christopher Gilliard [ARCHIVE] /
npub1qm…0hwnt
2023-06-07 22:51:43
in reply to nevent1q…5jdc
Author Public Key
npub1qmsejphez6np2my9fu40kj9en68d5fa3s7ap4ul7eh9aeuljusgs50hwntPublished at
2023-06-07 22:51:43Event JSON
{
"id": "d3c24959b51526b5d6adb1928f3edf116741e927187e1afd799156f9392bc606",
"pubkey": "06e19906f916a6156c854f2afb48b99e8eda27b187ba1af3fecdcbdcf3f2e411",
"created_at": 1686178303,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"603f39678bcc9e8e30f94bfe6386763f2e249a0ec7bc1f247dad6d882215065d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"22682907969c25643d782109cc335a35c48e732d81fe903b30555936dd349748",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003e But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is\nnot helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions\ncan always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy\nmulti-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the\nprivate key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users\ndo this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is\nproblematic because such multi-signature \"data\" scriptpubkeys are\nindistinguishable from \"real\" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must\nbe kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which\nare provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO\nset.\n\nThis sounds like a good justification to remove the legacy multi-signature\ncapabilities as well.\n\n\u003e\u003e Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting\narbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage\npeople who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use\nthe OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.\n\nYou can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you can make it\nharder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doing what they\nwant to do.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:56 PM Russell O'Connor \u003croconnor at blockstream.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Firstly, a minor point is that your proposal is a soft-fork, not a\n\u003e hard-fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e But more importantly, adding limitations on OP_RETURN transactions is not\n\u003e helpful. Users who want to embed arbitrary data in their transactions can\n\u003e always do so by encoding their data inside the values of legacy\n\u003e multi-signature scriptpubkeys (pubkeys can be generated without knowing the\n\u003e private key in order to encode non-key related data). Not only can users\n\u003e do this, users have done this in the past. However, this behaviour is\n\u003e problematic because such multi-signature \"data\" scriptpubkeys are\n\u003e indistinguishable from \"real\" multisignature scriptpubkeys, and thus must\n\u003e be kept in the UTXO set. This differs from outputs using OP_RETURN which\n\u003e are provably unspendable, and therefore can be safely omitted from the UTXO\n\u003e set.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting\n\u003e arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage\n\u003e people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use\n\u003e the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, as it stands, fees already nudge various participants to consolidate\n\u003e their data in the way that you suggest they do.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:32 AM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I have created a BIP which can be found here:\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal.\n\u003e\u003e If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e Chris\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210416/ac1b035a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "fbb23c150a1e944d08f21620d6441fc98ae029b3186ff9b546aec443953ae07e48ad7a2670401495e9da39fd2aabd1a7fd985100a1a5f1a3ae36520dcb088597"
}