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

2023-02-05 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
On Sat., Feb. 4, 2023, 21:01 Peter Todd, wrote: > > > On February 5, 2023 1:11:35 AM GMT+01:00, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > >Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey, > >there is a crossover point in data size where i

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unenforceable fee obligations in multiparty protocols with Taproot inputs

2023-02-11 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
Yes. If you would otherwise sign the tapleaf, then I would recommend also signing the entire tapbranch. On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:15 AM Anthony Towns wrote: > On 9 February 2023 12:04:16 am AEST, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote

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

2023-02-04 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey, there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper to use witness data. Where that crossover point is depends on the finer details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some reasonable

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unenforceable fee obligations in multiparty protocols with Taproot inputs

2023-02-07 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
There is a bug in Taproot that allows the same Tapleaf to be repeated multiple times in the same Taproot, potentially at different Taplevels incurring different Tapfee rates. The countermeasure is that you should always know the entire Taptree when interacting with someone's Tapspend. On Tue,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unenforceable fee obligations in multiparty protocols with Taproot inputs

2023-02-08 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
se: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > --- Original Message --- > On Tuesday, February 7th, 2023 at 18:35, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > There is a bug in Ta

<    1   2   3