From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com>
To: Moth <moth_oshi@proton•me>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Witness script validation to reject arbitrary data
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 14:43:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACrqygCN-LLttNks-MpBKErZauZyx8hpV=MCgvACRoOcRxETOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SzOndBJmU5RPVdT2IhiWUmw925vgy-KCwrbWC4_e8tHVj5VWUn-Tr50TjxTczUUDcaVjUJEiuLVmFjfmtZwwvLyuUSkrGVg9uNje2oARArc=@proton.me>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2683 bytes --]
On May 8, 2023 at 1:16:41 PM, Moth via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> From what I understand, things like inscriptions can only be inserted
> between two specific flags - OP_FALSE and OP_IF. Having a validation check
> to reject witness scripts that have arbitrary data between these two flags
> could be used to reject inscriptions while still allowing all the benefits
> of taproot. This will prevent people from overloading the network with txns
> geared solely for ordinals and brc-20 tokens.
>
Unfortunately, there are many other ways to “inscribe” other than that
particular trick.
>
> Is there a reason such a validation check is a bad idea? We already have
> OP_RETURN to store arbitrary data that is limited to 80kb. Was it an
> oversight that arbitrary data can be inserted between OP_FALSE and OP_IF
> when the size limit for witness scripts was lifted as part of taproot?
>
There have been some of us that had hoped for a slightly larger OP_RETURN
such that we can store a tagged root of a hash-tree (~128-512 bytes). For
instance, open time-stamps, ION, and my own privacy-focused Gordian
Envelope (https://www.blockchaincommons.com/introduction/Envelope-Intro/),
all consolidate large sets of proofs into a hash, which we use for L2
proofs-of-inclusion. My own preference is that the size can be large enough
so you can store the hash, optionally have a signature on it, and have a
few bytes for self-describing data (we like CBOR as it is quite small).
All of us held off for years asking for larger OP_RETURN or standardizing
on a pay-to-contract BIP for the techniques we do use because of objections
to putting anything on-chain. But now we are dismayed by the inscription
technique that freeloads on the network mempool, the validation network,
and volunteer unpruned full nodes.
For instance, I host an alternative explora instance (the source code base
used by blockstream.info), offering it publicly via Tor so that there is
more than a single server offering its details. Inscriptions combined with
DOS attacks on Tor is making it more expensive for me to host and maintain
this free privacy service.
There was a recent thread discussing raising the limit on OP_RETURN
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
Here is an old relevant thread from open time-stamps:
https://github.com/opentimestamps/python-opentimestamps/pull/14
I’m not sure what the solution is. I feel like I’ve been a good neighbor
for some time on this topic, always recommending minimal on-chain data, and
now I feel frustrated with this free-rider problem.
— Christopher Allen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5407 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-08 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-08 20:16 Moth
2023-05-08 21:33 ` angus
2023-05-08 21:43 ` Christopher Allen [this message]
2023-05-09 17:45 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-05-08 23:55 ` Peter Todd
2023-05-09 12:20 ` Moth
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='CACrqygCN-LLttNks-MpBKErZauZyx8hpV=MCgvACRoOcRxETOQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=christophera@lifewithalacrity$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=moth_oshi@proton$(echo .)me \
/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