From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:33:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpOvXg7_Yv9jkX=+a7ALXHgA5-4Oh4ZQnzp=pw5-0bZPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACrqygD_5jpkTvvcFo7eHxZfiH4evzZQc=YB=opBo6M_0EsZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
op_return outputs can be pruned because they are not spendable.
putting a hash on in the witness script data won't make things better
(it would actually make them worse) and it definitely doesn't help
"block size bloat".
I think I'm missing some context, but if you're using op_return purely
for timestamping I would recommend using pay 2 contract instead.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?
>
> I recommend against using an op_return prefix, as they allow for transaction
> censorship.
>
> In fact, in our case, where we use an IPFS hash in an op_return, we remove
> the IPFS multihash prefix information to post a “bare” SHA256 hash to look
> like many other hashes being posted in op_returns, to minimize any ability
> for a miner to identify our transaction. The more projects that do this the
> better — a form of herd immunity.
>
> Longer term I’m looking for more responsible ways to publish this hash, for
> instance have the hash be in the witness script data, so that it can be
> easily purged from nodes that do not wish to preserve it and prevent block
> size bloat. However, to do so everyone has to do it the same way, ideally
> have it look like any other transaction. I’ve not quite seen a solid
> proposal for best practices here.
>
> — Christopher Allen
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-15 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-14 18:34 Christopher Allen
2018-08-15 20:33 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2018-08-15 20:40 ` Jude Nelson
2018-08-15 21:54 ` Christopher Allen
2018-08-16 1:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-08-16 2:22 ` Lautaro Dragan
2018-08-16 2:37 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-08-16 17:32 ` Ryan Grant
2018-08-15 21:46 ` Peter Todd
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-08-05 21:11 Lautaro Dragan
2018-08-05 23:57 ` Peter Todd
2018-08-06 0:55 ` Lautaro Dragan
2018-08-06 1:54 ` CryptAxe
2018-08-06 2:04 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-08-06 2:19 ` Lautaro Dragan
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='CABm2gDpOvXg7_Yv9jkX=+a7ALXHgA5-4Oh4ZQnzp=pw5-0bZPA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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