📅 Original date posted:2018-08-05
📝 Original message:Don't worry about claiming it. There are no reserved prefixes enforced by
the software. For example anyone could create an output that uses the
witness coinbase commitment prefix bytes. It would just be ignored (unless
it was in the coinbase, in which case it would also need to be valid).
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 6:47 PM Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.
>
> And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to
> differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be
> for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean?
>
> Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little while
> until we can address that issue.
>
> Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow?
>
>
>
>
> El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>
> escribió:
>
>>
>>
>> On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >Hi everyone,
>> >
>> >My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et
>> ><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>;. At Po.et we
>> >use
>> >colored coins
>> ><
>> https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110
>> >
>> >to
>> >store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET".
>> >
>> >I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin wiki
>> ><https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=OP_RETURN&oldid=62560>; that
>> >*protocols
>> >wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin
>> >Improvement Proposals process*.
>> >
>> >That entry seems to have changed recently
>> ><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>;, no longer
>> >stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been able
>> >to
>> >find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of
>> >thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here.
>> >
>> >Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?
>>
>> It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resistance
>> and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefix
>> for technical reasons.
>>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180805/616dd36b/attachment.html>;
CryptAxe [ARCHIVE] /
npub12p…js309
2023-06-07 18:13:59
in reply to nevent1q…dzze
Author Public Key
npub12p7jzesdg8kxdg8rujr20znnd868fgugczkwh4cyxwa6gnxj5sxsnjs309Published at
2023-06-07 18:13:59Event JSON
{
"id": "c1ca2b08cb8a40b84b25596d644530be5f584034db3c1e65f9ef02105a0633d8",
"pubkey": "507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d",
"created_at": 1686161639,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eccbd39bd966baef56b5939c955d566f9fe6d2296c2c463ce1c7b09a9df0388b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8e7ebf6e4be4e7aacf0e329486f7b58fd801047403c5b80e115db6f3c5196343",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"283740a9495a018fb377f3449cd10c30c636c5aaea85cf84e64ca9ec573712c9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-08-05\n📝 Original message:Don't worry about claiming it. There are no reserved prefixes enforced by\nthe software. For example anyone could create an output that uses the\nwitness coinbase commitment prefix bytes. It would just be ignored (unless\nit was in the coinbase, in which case it would also need to be valid).\n\nOn Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 6:47 PM Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.\n\u003e\n\u003e And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to\n\u003e differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be\n\u003e for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean?\n\u003e\n\u003e Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little while\n\u003e until we can address that issue.\n\u003e\n\u003e Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e\n\u003e escribió:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003eHi everyone,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003eMy name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003chttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes\u003e. At Po.et we\n\u003e\u003e \u003euse\n\u003e\u003e \u003ecolored coins\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003c\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003eto\n\u003e\u003e \u003estore data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix \"POET\".\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003eI've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin wiki\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003chttps://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=OP_RETURN\u0026oldid=62560\u003e that\n\u003e\u003e \u003e*protocols\n\u003e\u003e \u003ewishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e \u003eImprovement Proposals process*.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003eThat entry seems to have changed recently\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003chttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes\u003e, no longer\n\u003e\u003e \u003estating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been able\n\u003e\u003e \u003eto\n\u003e\u003e \u003efind any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of\n\u003e\u003e \u003ethoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003eShould we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resistance\n\u003e\u003e and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefix\n\u003e\u003e for technical reasons.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180805/616dd36b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "369447fbf75eb19091bbd584371e62e2940bda55f483e15db5603ebb42aa4c2e5411850c0d6aa9bf60dca06f6288b5a928acfc69ba80b7834716a83b1ab57b0f"
}