đ
Original date posted:2021-04-17
đ Original message:Indeed, it was 40 then 80 then 40 again and then 80 at the end (or
something like this.. not sure about the exact history!).
Looking forward to the proposal(s).
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:12 PM Christopher Gilliard <
christopher.gilliard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Will update the 40 bytes to 80 bytes (40 bytes
> was the previous value, but it has since been updated to 80 so that's
> correct). Regarding the L2 proposal. I think the BIPs I am working on will
> address your questions and I'm hoping to have two more out early next week
> so please stay tuned. I'm open to merging those BIPs into this BIP or
> vice-versa, but for the sake of making things more readable I broke them
> down into several BIPs for the time being.
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:15 PM Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas at gmail.com>
> 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
>>
>
--
Konstantinos A. Karasavvas
Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210417/6f3da8fa/attachment-0001.html>;
Kostas Karasavvas [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tqâŚy3e9m
2023-06-07 22:51:47
in reply to nevent1qâŚmkk2
Author Public Key
npub1tqac06nxg94veg9atxfktrfdwpl2a4snw2xdrt52ek5893jnnkkqey3e9mPublished at
2023-06-07 22:51:47Event JSON
{
"id": "6359feabef7bbd8b62cebf80cc2d2cde00b21251678f78d4a1270036fc64efc2",
"pubkey": "583b87ea66416acca0bd5993658d2d707eaed613728cd1ae8acda872c6539dac",
"created_at": 1686178307,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"603f39678bcc9e8e30f94bfe6386763f2e249a0ec7bc1f247dad6d882215065d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"217b22f254dc612249a02eb4a8203d3bea3be29adc8b2a63320793af77414af8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"06e19906f916a6156c854f2afb48b99e8eda27b187ba1af3fecdcbdcf3f2e411"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2021-04-17\nđ Original message:Indeed, it was 40 then 80 then 40 again and then 80 at the end (or\nsomething like this.. not sure about the exact history!).\n\nLooking forward to the proposal(s).\n\nOn Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:12 PM Christopher Gilliard \u003c\nchristopher.gilliard at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Thanks for the feedback. Will update the 40 bytes to 80 bytes (40 bytes\n\u003e was the previous value, but it has since been updated to 80 so that's\n\u003e correct). Regarding the L2 proposal. I think the BIPs I am working on will\n\u003e address your questions and I'm hoping to have two more out early next week\n\u003e so please stay tuned. I'm open to merging those BIPs into this BIP or\n\u003e vice-versa, but for the sake of making things more readable I broke them\n\u003e down into several BIPs for the time being.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:15 PM Kostas Karasavvas \u003ckkarasavvas at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi Christopher,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some feedback:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes of data.\"\n\u003e\u003e It is 80 bytes.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"A future BIP proposing such a layer two protocol will be forthcoming.\"\n\u003e\u003e So what is this BIP about? Just saying that it would be a nice idea? This\n\u003e\u003e BIP should be the one that would go through this L2 suggestion. If one root\n\u003e\u003e OP_RETURN substitutes all the rest it should say how that would be done...\n\u003e\u003e where would the merkle proofs be stored, what are the trust\n\u003e\u003e assumptions that we need to make, etc.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"Objections to this proposal\" section\n\u003e\u003e I agree with others re hard-fork, which would be a good thing of course.\n\u003e\u003e My main objection with this proposal is that I don't see a proposal. It\n\u003e\u003e seems like wishful thinking... if only we could substitute all the\n\u003e\u003e OP_RETURNs with one :-)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e We have to make sure that a proposal like this (L2, etc.) would make sure\n\u003e\u003e that there are incentives that justify the added complexity for the users.\n\u003e\u003e Multisig is not the only way data could be stored the wrong way; P2PK,\n\u003e\u003e P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH can also be used. If the incentives are not good\n\u003e\u003e enough people would start using these UTXO-bloat-heavy alternatives.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e There are a multitude of L2's (kind-of) that do this 'aggregation' of\n\u003e\u003e data hashes using merkle trees. Factom is adding a single merkle root per\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin block for the millions upon millions of records (of thousand of\n\u003e\u003e users) that they keep in their network. Opentimestamps, tierion,\n\u003e\u003e blockstacks and others do a similar thing. I have investigated several of\n\u003e\u003e those in the past, for one of my projects, but I ended up using plain old\n\u003e\u003e OP_RETURN because the overhead of their (L2-like) solution and trust\n\u003e\u003e assumptions where not to my liking; at least for my use case. They were\n\u003e\u003e pretty solid/useful for other use cases.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Unless the proposed L2 is flexible/generic enough it would really\n\u003e\u003e prohibit this L2 innovation that OP_RETURN allowed (see above).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:32 PM Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I have created a BIP which can be found here:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://github.com/cgilliard/bips/blob/notarization/bip-XXXX.mediawiki\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I'm sending this email to start the discussion regarding this proposal.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e If there are any comments/suggestions, please let me know.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Chris\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Konstantinos A. Karasavvas\n\u003e\u003e Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator\n\u003e\u003e https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\n-- \nKonstantinos A. Karasavvas\nSoftware Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator\nhttps://twitter.com/kkarasavvas\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210417/6f3da8fa/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "3ca217637d1a12f4ede90796cb6ddc0807489850eee6afa112f97ef4b36fcbf5fdeadce9cf6fe47be5d8dafcf207924161cfdb58b4e98d58f1f010ba89630e75"
}