Peter, thanks for the links. I'm aware that there are other timestamping aggregation services that already exist, but I had some different ideas that integrate into some other services. Also thanks for sending the link to the single use seal asset transfer. I will take a look at that.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:57:55AM +0000, Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thanks ZmnSCPxj. Yes, I agree there are many ways to embed arbitrary data
> in the blockchain and it's not feasible to block all of them. That is why
> it's important to, at the same time as limiting the OP_RETURN to one per
> block, also propose and implement a layer 2 solution for timestamping
> so people have a clear and simple upgrade path. That is what I will be
> discussing in one of the BIPs I intend to release early next week.
Note that an aggregated timestamping service already exists:
https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement
But timestamping is useless for most things people want to do, as it can't
commit to a unique history. It merely proves something existed in the past. For
uniqueness, you need something like:
https://petertodd.org/2017/scalable-single-use-seal-asset-transfer
Anyway, at current fees being what they are there's no compelling reason to try
to prevent people from embedding data in the Bitcoin block chain with consensus
changes. Economics is preventing that just fine.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org