Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF

From: Christopher Gilliard <christopher.gilliard@gmail•com>
To: Zach Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - limiting OP_RETURN / HF
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:12:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK=nyAxmNc087YPwxr-3i9J1zm+1+VWMy_u1a=Rcc1spdZBHKw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4-pEDEsQCqT9Yiz6WiWahPV5kkxc89XbsDydgEPuoZRU8MvQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2279 bytes --]

Zach,

Thanks for the comments. I just sent out another email to the dev alias
with the other two BIPs that I mentioned last week. It is pending approval
now. I think it will talk about some of the things you mentioned. To avoid
having a lot of comments about those BIPs on this thread, let's use the new
thread for discussing those BIPs.

--Chris

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:45 AM Zach Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail•com> wrote:

> [Note: this is my first post to the list]
>
> Businesses storing data on-chain is undesirable but sadly unavoidable.
> Therefore one might as well *facilitate* data storage beyond just OP_RETURN
> by offering a more efficient way to store data on-chain, while still being
> almost as expensive in use per byte of payload (i.e., data) compared to
> using OP_RETURN.
>
> Storing data using OP_RETURN is still inefficient per byte of payload so a
> more efficient dedicated data storing facility might be created that stores
> more payload data per on-chain byte. Such a facility should be (marginally)
> cheaper to use per payload byte compared to using a hack such as OP_RETURN.
> This would encourage the use of this facility in favor of OP_RETURN or
> other hacks, while at the same time dramatically reducing the footprint of
> storing data on-chain.
>
> Zac
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:29 AM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> > If only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize
>> > the hash will have to out-bid each other ("fee-bidding"). This hash can
>> > then be used to create another chain ("merged-mining")
>>
>> Merged mining at present only needs one hash for a merkle root, and
>> that's stored in the coinbase. It would be even simpler to add the
>> following rules:
>>
>> 1) No OP_RETURN transactions allowed at all
>> 2) If you want to commit data, do so in that one transaction in the
>> coinbase
>>
>> Also curious about how you'd handle the payment - do I need to put in a
>> transaction that burns bitcoins for the tx fee? That isn't free in terms
>> of storage either.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3224 bytes --]