📅 Original date posted:2023-08-21
🗒️ Summary of this message: Banning arbitrary data will lead to encoding data within public keys, making it indistinguishable and difficult to detect. Mimblewimble protocol already prevents spam encoding.
📝 Original message:
> If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will
> simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public
> key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing
> to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys, there will be
> no way to tell a priori whether a given public key is really a public key
> or whether it is encoding an inscription or some other data.
Note that in the Mimblewimble protocol, range proofs already prove
knowledge of blinding factor in Pedersen commitments, and thus no
additional padding is needed there to prevent the encoding of spam
into cryptographic material. This makes pure MW blockchains the most
inscription/spam resistant [1].
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg61980991#msg61980991
John Tromp [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jz…tsze5
2023-08-22 14:20:56
in reply to nevent1q…nvrj
Author Public Key
npub1jzv8hadmmqgttce5q9dn69j4msczrwdw898t3fetwyt64gess4ssttsze5Published at
2023-08-22 14:20:56Event JSON
{
"id": "b987cb5d0e35403c2a7ec1be3dda3b608ae91613c7b7c74d9e809fbdc2ae5aac",
"pubkey": "90987bf5bbd810b5e334015b3d1655dc3021b9ae394eb8a72b7117aaa3308561",
"created_at": 1692714056,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1dcce36c3f1f07e22a2801eda4ce40171fdf489e9118c1097ec72143125caf49",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee422fb41cc2901515c2156efe25208229413d9c2a1f1d0953e818de61a5f389",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5751cb9c9ebf71036238f2612158172d27c2e397ae71abacc524602f53ca54c2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-08-21\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Banning arbitrary data will lead to encoding data within public keys, making it indistinguishable and difficult to detect. Mimblewimble protocol already prevents spam encoding.\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e If we ban \"arbitrary data\", however you want to define it, then actors will\n\u003e simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public\n\u003e key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing\n\u003e to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys, there will be\n\u003e no way to tell a priori whether a given public key is really a public key\n\u003e or whether it is encoding an inscription or some other data.\n\nNote that in the Mimblewimble protocol, range proofs already prove\nknowledge of blinding factor in Pedersen commitments, and thus no\nadditional padding is needed there to prevent the encoding of spam\ninto cryptographic material. This makes pure MW blockchains the most\ninscription/spam resistant [1].\n\n[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg61980991#msg61980991",
"sig": "88d097fe437c62121d58fe2d4561ac99619315e84e091e425f31ece5af3f4951f37129089dfa15842a52c19524f8a36db34d992689ae31fef41ea3378c013d0f"
}