Re: [bitcoin-dev] TARO Protocol metadata BIP proposal
Big fan of this. I don't have the technical expertise to suggest much, but I
think that is a really good start for a foundation of bearer instruments.
-Andrew
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
--- Original Message ---
On Friday, April 21st, 2023 at 2:46 AM, Adam Ivansky via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi all / happy Friday ,
>
> I would like to propose a BIP for the metadata structure of assets traded on
> TARO Protocol running on Bitcoin blockchain. A new bip-taro.mediawiki file.
>
> The BIP for TARO is here
> https://github.com/Roasbeef/bips/blob/bip-taro/bip-taro.mediawiki . TARO BIP
> does not explicitly talk about the format of metadata of the assets. However
> this is something we will have to agree on if we are to start trading NFTs,
> Stablecoins and different synthetic assets such as tokenized stocks / options.
>
> For the past few months I have been operating a wallet for TARO called
> Tiramisu Wallet on testnet ( https://testnet.tarowallet.net/ ) and I was able
> to put together a list of fields that the metadata should have . This is a
> result of myself testing different use cases for the protocol as well as
> external users coming in and minting different assets.
>
> My observation is that users care a lot about the ticker, asset name,
> description, image representing the asset, info on who minted the asset.
>
> For this reason I would like to propose a BIP for TARO Protocol asset
> metadata. I think this should be separate from the TARO BIP as the format of
> asset metadata might evolve depending on the real-life use cases and what
> assets end up being minted / traded on TARO.
>
> I am proposing that the metadata is structured as a JSON stored as a string
> and that it is formatted as follows:
>
> {
> "ticker": // [optional] Fungible assets should have ticker
> "type": // Stablecoin | Image | Video | Data ... Type of the asset
> "description": // [mandatory] Short description of the asset explaining how
> the asset works
> "data": // [optional] Base64 formatted image data. This is the image
> representation of the asset / an icon representing the asset.
> "hash_data": // [optional] Hash of the data that asset represents
> "external_url": // [optional] External URL to the thing that the asset
> represents
> "attributes": { // [optional] External URL to the thing that the asset
> represents
> "collection_name":
> ...
> }
> "minter_info": { // [optional] Information about the entity that minted the
> asset
> "name":
> "email":
> "phone":
> "telegram":
> "website":
> }
> }
>
> This was loosely inspired by the standard use by OpenSea
> https://docs.opensea.io/docs/metadata-standards only in case of TARO we have
> less of an incentive to make the metadata small as this data is not written
> to blockchain directly.
> This is why I think we should start including the actual image data into the
> metadata.
>
> Tiramisu wallet is on testnet right now and uses some of these JSON fields.
>
> Please let me know how you feel about this.
>
> PS: I am following the manual from here
> https://github.com/Roasbeef/bips/tree/bip-taro that says my first step should
> be sending an email to this mailing list .
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adam Ivansky
>
> Founder of Tiramisu Wallet___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum fees
From my limited knowledge in the space, and I've taken opinions of people I respect that are far more knowledgeable than me. I don't know of any data of what happens at the point where the coinbase drops to below the fees on any chain. I don't think there has been one where that has happened. Perhaps there is a chain out there where it is fee's only? Perhaps that can provide insight. Opinion: I think as bitcoin's capabilities grow, demand for it will as well. There are a lot of efforts to increase the amount of transactions that can fit into a block. I think the combination of limited block space and a reduced amount of bitcoin's entering the market is the right combination for the system to self sustain. I'm looking forward to seeing the result! Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email. --- Original Message --- On Wednesday, March 1st, 2023 at 12:18 PM, Giuseppe B via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm relatively new here so what I'm proposing could have already been > discussed, or may be flawed or inapplicable. I apologize for that. > > I was picturing a situation where block rewards are almost zero, and the base > layer is mainly used as a settlement layer for relatively few large > transactions, since the majority of smaller ones goes through LN. > > In such a case it may very well be that even if transaction amounts are very > consistent, transaction fees end up being very small since there is enough > space for everyone in a block. Users wouldn't mind paying higher fees as they > know that that would increase the network security, however nobody wants to > be the only one doing that. Miners would of course like being paid more. So > everyone involved would prefer higher fees but they just stay low because > that's the only rational individual choice. > > Therefore I was imagining the introduction of a new protocol rule, min_fees, > that would work like this: > - the miner that gets to mine a block appends a min_fee field to the block, > specifying the minimum fees that need to be contained in the following block > in order for it to be valid. > - one can also mine an empty block and reset the min_fee, to avoid the chain > getting stuck. > > min_fees could either represent the total fees of the following block, or the > minimal fee for each single transaction, as a percentage of the value > transacted. Both seem to have some merits and some potential drawbacks. Of > course min_fees=0 would correspond to the current situation. > > It looks to me that this could have the potential to bring the equilibrium > closer to a socially optimal one (as opposed to individually optimal), and to > benefit the network security in the long term. Of course it's just a rough > sketch and it would deserve a much deeper analysis. I was just interested in > knowing if you think that the principle has some merit or if it's not even > worth discussing it for some reason that I'm not considering. > > Cheers, > > Giuseppe.___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for OP_VAULT
I read the draft and this seems to have some functionality that I am looking for. I'm pretty new to bitcoin-dev, but I'm persistent and have a lot of time on my hands. I would like multiple tapleaves be restricted on the amount that they can spend. Say an input of 1 BTC, has a locking script of a tapscript that has 1 of 3 pubkeys of Alice, Bob and Carol(participants). I want to restrict the outputs of their next transactions to .2, .3 and .5 BTC respectively. In the event of Bob spending their output, they are restricted to make a transaction that has a change output that has at least Alice and Carol's Amount, and a 1 or 2 tapscript or a 1 of 3 tapscript if Bob didn't spend all of their funds. In the event of two of the three participants separately broadcast their transactions, I'm hoping that the second sender, can combine the two transactions into a package where the outputs and witnesses would be adjusted where two participants share an output with their respective amounts, and the remainder participant still has their funds available. Is this clear? I don't have a lot of experience communicating complex ideas in writing. I've been looking at some BIP's like OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY as well which had some idea's I really liked like OP_AMOUNTVERIFY. I'm not aware of the risks that the community previously discussed about the topic. Andrew Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email. --- Original Message --- On Thursday, March 2nd, 2023 at 6:54 AM, Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Greetings AJ, > > Glad I could resurrect the idea! > >> Then instead of `idx hash delay OP_TRIGGER_FORWARD` you > write `idx hash delay 2 "OP_CSV OP_DROP OP_FORWARD_OUTPUTS" > OP_FORWARD_LEAF_UPDATE` > > Interesting idea! (I'll let you be the one to scope creep the proposal :) ) > > To be pedantic, EXPR_TRIGGER would become: > > <2> OP_FORWARD_OUTPUTS> OP_FORWARD_LEAF_UPDATE > > and at spend time the idx and hash are put into the witness stack. > > To be clear, could be embedded in the
[bitcoin-dev] Relative txout amounts with a Merkleized Sum Tree and explicit miner fee.
Can output amounts be mapped to a tap branch? For the goal of secure partial
spends of a single UTXO? Looking for feedback on this idea. I got it from Taro.
Merkel_tree_root_tweak = tagged_hash(“root” || left_hash || right_hash)
Tree_branch = tagged_hash(“branch” || left_hash || right_hash ) ||
right_output_sum + left_relative_output_amount
Tree_leaf = tagged_hash("leaf" || script ) || relative_output_amount
Transaction Validation:
There would be one output with an amount that is negative.
The negative amount would flag this transaction as relative amount spends.
The miner fee would be the absolute of the output amount.
The witness would include the txout amount.
Txout is less than other inputs that referencing this output.
Questions:
Would this require a hard fork?
Would the sum be required in the asset tree?. The sum at the root would be
implicitly 1.0. How big can a taproot tree get before it is too cumbersome?
Could multiple taproot trees be put inside a tweak?
Am I missing anything vital?
Possible Benefits
Perhaps slightly increase privacy of output amounts?
Reduced growth rate of UTXO’s. This scheme would be consuming N inputs and
producing 1 output.
Drawbacks
I think this would disable the ability for output change addresses to be the
same as inputs as the spending amounts are absolute.
Transaction Example
Inputs : [1.5,.3,.1]
TapTree:
Branch sum :1
Change Address : .5
Branch sum: .5
AlicePubKey: .2
Branch sum: .3
BobPub and BobHash: .1
Branch sum: .2
CaroPub and DavePub and CarolDaveHash : .1
ErinPub and CarolDaveHash and after 10days : .1
Outputs: [-.0.001]
Alice spending example
Alice sends to new address : .1 * (sum of Inputs + outputs) = 0.18999
Alice New Change Address = .1 * (sum of Inputs + outputs) = 0.18999
Application
I think something like this would provide away to onboard a lot of lightning
channels with a single UTXO output. An exchange could schedule open lightning
channels at certain time intervals, perhaps every 10 minutes. Ideally, people
would provide pubkeys and payment, to be placed in a tap leaf. Similar to
selling seats for an aircraft flight.
Thanks for reading
Andrew
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
