From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Aymeric Vitte <aymeric@peersm•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 03:01:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <76718304-A8E3-46E6-B2F7-DE86831F15DF@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkAdQ9TSMm4vPJOrThu_h6VbqwPhOQQR7-Yr+WZ0DMBYw@mail.gmail.com>
On February 5, 2023 1:11:35 AM GMT+01:00, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey,
>there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper to
>use witness data. Where that crossover point is depends on the finer
>details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some
>reasonable assumptions. Such a calculation could form the basis of a
>reasonable OP_RETURN proposal. I don't know if it would be persuasive, but
>it would at least be coherent.
I don't think it's worth the technical complexity trying to carefully argue a specific limit. Let users decide for themselves how they want to use OpReturn.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-05 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 0:46 Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 2:07 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 2:22 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 8:36 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-01 12:51 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 14:02 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-02-02 11:22 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 11:45 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 11:49 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 12:24 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-01 12:59 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 13:25 ` Rijndael
2023-02-03 11:15 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-03 18:47 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 14:11 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-04 17:01 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 18:54 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 20:55 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 22:18 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 23:09 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:04 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 11:40 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 12:06 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 12:47 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:11 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-05 2:01 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2023-02-05 18:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-12 16:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 18:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 19:59 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2023-02-17 10:56 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 18:06 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-02-17 12:49 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-18 18:38 ` Aymeric Vitte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=76718304-A8E3-46E6-B2F7-DE86831F15DF@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=aymeric@peersm$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox