Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH

2023-02-18 Thread Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
So with datacarrier we can store data in taproot annex with one tx which will be data and/or extension of the script validation via PUSH_ANNEX I looked at your links and plenty of others, but had some hard time to find the proposal (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/9dc3f74b384f143b7f1bdad30dc0

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testing censorship resistance of bitcoin p2p network

2023-02-18 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 5:11 AM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Also, it gives us a hint, that if any Script upgrade will be considered in > the future, we can think about doing it in a way, where unused parts can be > pruned, without invalidating signatu

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Testing censorship resistance of bitcoin p2p network

2023-02-18 Thread vjudeu via bitcoin-dev
> By standardness rules (where you can have up to 80-byte pushes), a little > over 1%. By consensus (520-byte pushes) less than 0.2%. Note that instead of "OP_DROP OP_DROP", people can use "OP_2DROP", so the number of dropping opcodes could be halved. > I mean, they'd provide the `FALSE` as a s