On 2025-02-15 01:37, Jose Storopoli wrote:
Dear Bitcoin Dev Community,
I am excited to introduce Bitcoin BOSD (Bitcoin Output Script
Descriptor), a new specification and open source Rust implementation
to simplify relay-safe (standardness-guarantee) on-chain withdrawals
for Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions.
Key Features:
- Standardness-by-construction for withdrawal outputs
- Eliminates ad-hoc standardness rule implementations in L2s
- Compact representation
It's unclear to me why you don't simply implement your selected
standardness rules on top of a BIP385 raw() output script descriptor
(with the normal BIP380 checksum)? That gives you an efficient
representation, compatibility with other software, a compact checksum,
and local policy.
For the later point, policy being local, there exists software[1] that I
believe has a moderate userbase (including possibly some miner support)
that implements less restrictive standard transaction rules than Bitcoin
Core, specifically allowing OP_RETURN outputs of more than 83 bytes
cumulative.[2] If a user of your software runs that node and believes
his transactions will relay to a compatible miner, what options does he
have of circumventing BOSD type 0's limit of 80 push bytes if one of his
users wants to send him such a data carrier output? He can propose a
type 5, but you'll probably reject that because >80 bytes will be
non-standard for other users. You can create an extension numeric
range, but then you'll have to centrally coordinate number assignment
for every random proposal. Instead, I think it makes more sense to not
use versioning at all and just perform local verification on raw()
descriptors; that way users of your software can modify one line of code
on their side to accept >80 bytes and everyone else can use the default
tests.
In addition to the above technical criticism, I find the BOSD name
extremely conflationary with the longstanding use of "output script
descriptors", or "descriptors" for short, to refer to the language that
originated in 2018 from Bitcoin Core developers for describing output
scripts.[3] I think it would be helpful to everyone for your proposal
to use a more distinct name.
Thanks,
-Dave
[1] https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/libre-relay-v28.1
[2]
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d67f4634e5395fbdf4383d7adcdfc92c0cca7fc9
[3] https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/output-script-descriptors/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin
Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/3d4f98e0886f03337b44f0e4152d1f33%40dtrt.org.
