📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16
📝 Original message:Hi Chris,
I agree with all the points that were made by others. You should also be
aware that layer two ideas like yours have already been explored, both by
myself and others. Allowing one hash per block allows for what I call
"fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining" (BMM), which as far as I know was first
proposed by Paul Storc for Drivechains.[0]
If only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize the
hash will have to out-bid each other ("fee-bidding"). This hash can then be
used to create another chain ("merged-mining"), while the Bitcoin miners do
not have to be aware of this other chain ("blind"). There are also non
fee-bidding variants that function e.g. by burning or locking up bitcoins
in order to create consensus.
As it turns out, fee-bidding BMM can be achieved using only a covenant
structure for transactions.[1] You'd have to create a sequence of
transactions (one per block), to which a hash can be attached. These can
simply be pre-signed transactions (requires forgetting a key, but the worst
that can happen is that the chain halts), or an actual covenant using
either sighash_anyprevout or op_ctv (we don't have these yet) – no
specialized soft fork (or hard fork) is required.
You might think any decentralized alternative chain requires an altcoin,
but this can also be avoided with a perpetual one-way peg.[2] For more
details, I recommend watching this video of the full concept, which I call
"spacechains": https://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg
-- Ruben Somsen
[0] Blind Merged-Mining for Drivechains:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki
[1] Fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining with covenants:
https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5
[2] Perpetual one-way peg:
https://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-sidechains-the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2f8ac302
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:33 PM Kostas Karasavvas via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Some feedback:
>
> "OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data."
> It is 80 bytes.
>
> "A future BIP proposing such a layer two protocol will be forthcoming."
> So what is this BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This
> BIP should be the one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one root
> OP_RETURN substitutes all the rest it should say how that would be done...
> where would the merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust
> assumptions that we need to make, etc.
>
> "Objections to this proposal" section
> I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a good thing of course.
> My main objection with this proposal is that I don't see a proposal. It
> seems like wishful thinking... if only we could substitute all the
> OP_RETURNs with one :-)
>
> We have to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure
> that there are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users.
> Multisig is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK,
> P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not good
> enough people would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.
>
> There are a multitude of L2's (kind-of) that do this 'aggregation' of data
> hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single merkle root per
> bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records (of thousand of
> users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tierion,
> blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated several of
> those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain old
> OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust
> assumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were
> pretty solid/useful for other use cases.
>
> Unless the proposed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really prohibit
> this L2 innovation that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Konstantinos A. Karasavvas
> Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
> https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210416/1f3a90a5/attachment-0001.html>;
Ruben Somsen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cn…qyeq0
2023-06-07 22:51:47
in reply to nevent1q…lt4t
Author Public Key
npub1cnrnujx86le38yu2jrt3la0yhewsrh2p2lucakv6mu28x7lm0rsq9qyeq0Published at
2023-06-07 22:51:47Event JSON
{
"id": "63ee6c87f192fb724b35b3fab0e8980e914563f26bcba8d690b72c98e6b707ac",
"pubkey": "c4c73e48c7d7f313938a90d71ff5e4be5d01dd4157f98ed99adf14737bfb78e0",
"created_at": 1686178307,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"603f39678bcc9e8e30f94bfe6386763f2e249a0ec7bc1f247dad6d882215065d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6359feabef7bbd8b62cebf80cc2d2cde00b21251678f78d4a1270036fc64efc2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"583b87ea66416acca0bd5993658d2d707eaed613728cd1ae8acda872c6539dac"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16\n📝 Original message:Hi Chris,\n\nI agree with all the points that were made by others. You should also be\naware that layer two ideas like yours have already been explored, both by\nmyself and others. Allowing one hash per block allows for what I call\n\"fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining\" (BMM), which as far as I know was first\nproposed by Paul Storc for Drivechains.[0]\n\nIf only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize the\nhash will have to out-bid each other (\"fee-bidding\"). This hash can then be\nused to create another chain (\"merged-mining\"), while the Bitcoin miners do\nnot have to be aware of this other chain (\"blind\"). There are also non\nfee-bidding variants that function e.g. by burning or locking up bitcoins\nin order to create consensus.\n\nAs it turns out, fee-bidding BMM can be achieved using only a covenant\nstructure for transactions.[1] You'd have to create a sequence of\ntransactions (one per block), to which a hash can be attached. These can\nsimply be pre-signed transactions (requires forgetting a key, but the worst\nthat can happen is that the chain halts), or an actual covenant using\neither sighash_anyprevout or op_ctv (we don't have these yet) – no\nspecialized soft fork (or hard fork) is required.\n\nYou might think any decentralized alternative chain requires an altcoin,\nbut this can also be avoided with a perpetual one-way peg.[2] For more\ndetails, I recommend watching this video of the full concept, which I call\n\"spacechains\": https://youtu.be/N2ow4Q34Jeg\n\n-- Ruben Somsen\n\n\n\n[0] Blind Merged-Mining for Drivechains:\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki\n\n[1] Fee-bidding Blind Merged-Mining with covenants:\nhttps://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/5e4be6d18e5fa526b17d8b34906b16a5\n\n[2] Perpetual one-way peg:\nhttps://medium.com/@RubenSomsen/21-million-bitcoins-to-rule-all-sidechains-the-perpetual-one-way-peg-96cb2f8ac302\n\nOn Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:33 PM Kostas Karasavvas via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi Christopher,\n\u003e\n\u003e Some feedback:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data.\"\n\u003e It is 80 bytes.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"A future BIP proposing such a layer two protocol will be forthcoming.\"\n\u003e So what is this BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This\n\u003e BIP should be the one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one root\n\u003e OP_RETURN substitutes all the rest it should say how that would be done...\n\u003e where would the merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust\n\u003e assumptions that we need to make, etc.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"Objections to this proposal\" section\n\u003e I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a good thing of course.\n\u003e My main objection with this proposal is that I don't see a proposal. It\n\u003e seems like wishful thinking... if only we could substitute all the\n\u003e OP_RETURNs with one :-)\n\u003e\n\u003e We have to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure\n\u003e that there are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users.\n\u003e Multisig is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK,\n\u003e P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not good\n\u003e enough people would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.\n\u003e\n\u003e There are a multitude of L2's (kind-of) that do this 'aggregation' of data\n\u003e hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single merkle root per\n\u003e bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records (of thousand of\n\u003e users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tierion,\n\u003e blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated several of\n\u003e those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain old\n\u003e OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust\n\u003e assumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were\n\u003e pretty solid/useful for other use cases.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unless the proposed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really prohibit\n\u003e this L2 innovation that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM 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\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Konstantinos A. Karasavvas\n\u003e Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator\n\u003e https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas\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/20210416/1f3a90a5/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "a53ad64f66d69d7dcd01c84615500c8d3c15de8a89552e3a8877ab699e8a52af555876994fe9b3c44a005e896fee72ea240a030111510377610b230c8e8462c6"
}