📅 Original date posted:2021-04-17
📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:57:55AM +0000, Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thanks ZmnSCPxj. Yes, I agree there are many ways to embed arbitrary data
> in the blockchain and it's not feasible to block all of them. That is why
> it's important to, at the same time as limiting the OP_RETURN to one per
> block, also propose and implement a layer 2 solution for timestamping
> so people have a clear and simple upgrade path. That is what I will be
> discussing in one of the BIPs I intend to release early next week.
Note that an aggregated timestamping service already exists:
https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement
But timestamping is useless for most things people want to do, as it can't
commit to a unique history. It merely proves something existed in the past. For
uniqueness, you need something like:
https://petertodd.org/2017/scalable-single-use-seal-asset-transfer
Anyway, at current fees being what they are there's no compelling reason to try
to prevent people from embedding data in the Bitcoin block chain with consensus
changes. Economics is preventing that just fine.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210417/8f8b5a12/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 18:31:36
in reply to nevent1q…cfs0
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 18:31:36Event JSON
{
"id": "d6edaeb72ad31c7879f70991ef70a957d21e7ff2b0000739c5f8c289618b3461",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686162696,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"05257ee76521a4b0a7a99d485b789d700ff2df92d74daa2032d8f5697bc9d8ff",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e8bdfe71e68f7e16aac1f444079881606e5589440e7284d58537c792b2890b0d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"06e19906f916a6156c854f2afb48b99e8eda27b187ba1af3fecdcbdcf3f2e411"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-17\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:57:55AM +0000, Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Thanks ZmnSCPxj. Yes, I agree there are many ways to embed arbitrary data\n\u003e in the blockchain and it's not feasible to block all of them. That is why\n\u003e it's important to, at the same time as limiting the OP_RETURN to one per\n\u003e block, also propose and implement a layer 2 solution for timestamping\n\u003e so people have a clear and simple upgrade path. That is what I will be\n\u003e discussing in one of the BIPs I intend to release early next week.\n\nNote that an aggregated timestamping service already exists:\n\nhttps://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement\n\nBut timestamping is useless for most things people want to do, as it can't\ncommit to a unique history. It merely proves something existed in the past. For\nuniqueness, you need something like:\n\nhttps://petertodd.org/2017/scalable-single-use-seal-asset-transfer\n\n\nAnyway, at current fees being what they are there's no compelling reason to try\nto prevent people from embedding data in the Bitcoin block chain with consensus\nchanges. Economics is preventing that just fine.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210417/8f8b5a12/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "b82fc5d3b953dd8bc163ad157b7706068fb4c63aa9da678a0707c475cc487366b414fad0b5259b12e1ef0bfdee4cb183f9051265105a3f1ce41ac9a9656859a2"
}