📅 Original date posted:2023-02-01
🗒️ Summary of this message: Efficient timestamps don't need to publish any meaningful data in the blockchain, and OpReturn is only used in OpenTimestamps because the efficiency gain isn't significant enough to improve it. Taproot is better for keeping data private until it needs to be revealed.
📝 Original message:On February 1, 2023 8:36:52 AM GMT, Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas at gmail.com> wrote:
>With OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immediately visible in the
>blockchain. I would consider this better (more straightforward) for things
>like time-stamping.
You are incorrect. Time-stamps merely prove that data existed prior to some point in time. There is absolutely no need for anything to be published in the blockchain to create a timestamp. Indeed, efficient timestamps don't actually publish any meaningful data: for efficiency you always combine many timestamps into a single merkle tree; a merkle tree tip digest is meaningless data by itself.
OpenTimestamps does in fact use OpReturn rather than something more efficient. But it does this only because the efficiency gain isn't significant enough for me to have gotten around to improving it. Reducing fee costs by ~10% isn't a good use of my time.
>With Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visible. This
>seems better when you don't want the data public but you need to be able to
>reveal the data when the time comes.
If your concern is the data being public due to OpReturn vs Taproot, you are confused and need to think more carefully about what exactly you are doing.
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 23:18:55
in reply to nevent1q…qvdu
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 23:18:55Event JSON
{
"id": "dc0f9f7f1af5cb2463155755549517a0ac2e6ab22666f94821eb69d9b3fba99e",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179935,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"db7e30240de322a59459e6f6d735c7f019f73c8194514d70467812fbd7606451",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f5cfc96848b8de16e44551b5fe566d601aff96d0091440a708e67d0d8c0bee3f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"583b87ea66416acca0bd5993658d2d707eaed613728cd1ae8acda872c6539dac"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-02-01\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Efficient timestamps don't need to publish any meaningful data in the blockchain, and OpReturn is only used in OpenTimestamps because the efficiency gain isn't significant enough to improve it. Taproot is better for keeping data private until it needs to be revealed.\n📝 Original message:On February 1, 2023 8:36:52 AM GMT, Kostas Karasavvas \u003ckkarasavvas at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eWith OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immediately visible in the\n\u003eblockchain. I would consider this better (more straightforward) for things\n\u003elike time-stamping.\n\nYou are incorrect. Time-stamps merely prove that data existed prior to some point in time. There is absolutely no need for anything to be published in the blockchain to create a timestamp. Indeed, efficient timestamps don't actually publish any meaningful data: for efficiency you always combine many timestamps into a single merkle tree; a merkle tree tip digest is meaningless data by itself.\n\nOpenTimestamps does in fact use OpReturn rather than something more efficient. But it does this only because the efficiency gain isn't significant enough for me to have gotten around to improving it. Reducing fee costs by ~10% isn't a good use of my time.\n\n\u003eWith Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visible. This\n\u003eseems better when you don't want the data public but you need to be able to\n\u003ereveal the data when the time comes.\n\nIf your concern is the data being public due to OpReturn vs Taproot, you are confused and need to think more carefully about what exactly you are doing.",
"sig": "e0188f6791100568ddce28af9ad7533fce08748671e9dcb583a8316630a32503ee347e4d9ec142d4c88937cdd8332118955893fb0c83bd87db18a034356a17b3"
}