From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail•com>,
Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 12:51:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BF0364BD-E25A-444D-91AE-DAAB44C82B76@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABE6yHtbgD_5kCHMu9P9ThbqRHnzXMERRZsu7_6H20CAcQuEww@mail.gmail.com>
On February 1, 2023 8:36:52 AM GMT, Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail•com> wrote:
>With OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immediately visible in the
>blockchain. I would consider this better (more straightforward) for things
>like time-stamping.
You are incorrect. Time-stamps merely prove that data existed prior to some point in time. There is absolutely no need for anything to be published in the blockchain to create a timestamp. Indeed, efficient timestamps don't actually publish any meaningful data: for efficiency you always combine many timestamps into a single merkle tree; a merkle tree tip digest is meaningless data by itself.
OpenTimestamps does in fact use OpReturn rather than something more efficient. But it does this only because the efficiency gain isn't significant enough for me to have gotten around to improving it. Reducing fee costs by ~10% isn't a good use of my time.
>With Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visible. This
>seems better when you don't want the data public but you need to be able to
>reveal the data when the time comes.
If your concern is the data being public due to OpReturn vs Taproot, you are confused and need to think more carefully about what exactly you are doing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 12:51 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 [this message]
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
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=BF0364BD-E25A-444D-91AE-DAAB44C82B76@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kkarasavvas@gmail$(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