1 2019-11-29T00:18:30  *** arik_ has quit IRC
  2 2019-11-29T00:46:47  *** arik_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
  3 2019-11-29T00:57:47  *** arik_ has quit IRC
  4 2019-11-29T01:53:39  *** devrando1 has quit IRC
  5 2019-11-29T02:10:42  *** andrewtoth_ has quit IRC
  6 2019-11-29T02:13:42  *** devrando1 has joined ##taproot-bip-review
  7 2019-11-29T02:24:25  *** devrando1 has quit IRC
  8 2019-11-29T02:24:42  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
  9 2019-11-29T03:07:55  *** andrewtoth_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 10 2019-11-29T03:29:57  *** belcher has quit IRC
 11 2019-11-29T03:33:47  *** belcher has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 12 2019-11-29T03:58:58  *** rottensox_ is now known as rottensox
 13 2019-11-29T04:13:36  *** arik_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 14 2019-11-29T04:23:11  *** arik_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 15 2019-11-29T05:55:20  *** arik_ has quit IRC
 16 2019-11-29T06:01:05  *** arik_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 17 2019-11-29T06:04:46  *** arik_ has quit IRC
 18 2019-11-29T06:08:10  *** arik_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 19 2019-11-29T06:21:48  *** rottensox_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 20 2019-11-29T06:23:18  *** rottensox__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 21 2019-11-29T06:23:32  *** rottensox_ has quit IRC
 22 2019-11-29T06:24:48  *** rottensox has quit IRC
 23 2019-11-29T06:49:28  *** arik_ has quit IRC
 24 2019-11-29T07:01:15  *** rottensox__ has quit IRC
 25 2019-11-29T07:01:20  *** rottensox_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 26 2019-11-29T07:03:48  *** rottensox__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 27 2019-11-29T07:07:21  *** rottensox_ has quit IRC
 28 2019-11-29T07:09:21  *** rottensox__ has quit IRC
 29 2019-11-29T07:09:46  *** rottensox__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 30 2019-11-29T07:14:21  *** rottensox__ has quit IRC
 31 2019-11-29T07:15:01  *** rottensox__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 32 2019-11-29T07:16:51  *** rottensox__ has quit IRC
 33 2019-11-29T07:17:18  *** rottensox__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 34 2019-11-29T08:30:47  *** b10c has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 35 2019-11-29T09:50:15  *** rottensox__ is now known as rottensox
 36 2019-11-29T09:59:44  *** dr-orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 37 2019-11-29T10:01:11  *** jonatack__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 38 2019-11-29T10:04:11  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
 39 2019-11-29T10:52:50  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
 40 2019-11-29T10:59:13  *** rottensox has quit IRC
 41 2019-11-29T11:08:34  *** rottensox has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 42 2019-11-29T13:27:35  *** dr-orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 43 2019-11-29T13:27:49  *** jonatack__ has quit IRC
 44 2019-11-29T14:33:44  *** jonatack__ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 45 2019-11-29T14:37:28  *** jonatack__ has quit IRC
 46 2019-11-29T14:37:44  *** jonatack has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 47 2019-11-29T14:38:50  <waxwing> probably fairly basic stuff but: in the mailing list post sipa says "Given that there are no known use cases for stack elements larger than 65 bytes", an obvious question arises as to why 520 was the size chosen and why we keep it?
 48 2019-11-29T14:39:06  <waxwing> hmm also is my memory failing me or doesn't/didn't that 520 limit apply to redeem scripts for p2sh?
 49 2019-11-29T14:39:54  <waxwing> (mailing list post i mean this one, it was referred in the week4 doc: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-September/017306.html)
 50 2019-11-29T14:43:03  <waxwing> separate comment, but i really like this "translate resource usage (e.g. sigop) into weight units to make tractable the economic optimisation problem of mining"; i can't help wonder whether we need some "unified theory" for it, so that if there were ever a new thing like conf. trans. in BTC there would be some standardised way to handle resource usage control.
 51 2019-11-29T14:45:27  <waxwing> "Tapscript execution allows one signature opcode per 50 witness weight units plus one free signature opcode." <--- unfairly cheap opcodes to go with your unfairly linear signatures.
 52 2019-11-29T14:57:44  *** rottensox has quit IRC
 53 2019-11-29T15:25:05  <waxwing> "Additionally, the limit applies to the transaction input instead of the block and only actually executed signature opcodes are counted." <-- this is interesting. a miner has to validate the given script + witness anyway, but with taproot notionally you're only ever satisfying "one" condition right, so i find it weird that you'd be dealing with a script with tons of conditional sigops and some of them not executed?
 54 2019-11-29T15:26:27  <waxwing> i was originally wondering about resource exhaustion but that's silly, miner has to validate anyway, so "only executed count" just removes one path of easy optimisation (count sigops, if too high, reject). still it's interesting, i guess there's a use case for tons of (unexecuted) sigops in a taproot situation that I'm not seeing.
 55 2019-11-29T15:31:19  <aj> waxwing: https://github.com/ajtowns/taproot-review/issues/28 is a sketch of a script with potentially many unexecuted sigops fwiw; k-of-n via checksigadd with k much less than n would have many failing sigops which are also ~free
 56 2019-11-29T15:31:25  <waxwing> (if it's jerry-rigged threshold multisig with n of ns there wouldn't be a need for unexecuted?)
 57 2019-11-29T15:31:37  <waxwing> oh lol almost the same time, thanks :)
 58 2019-11-29T15:32:52  <waxwing> oh! i forgot checksigadd lets you do that. yes, that's a bit different.
 59 2019-11-29T15:34:41  *** _andrewtoth_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 60 2019-11-29T15:35:28  *** andrewtoth_ has quit IRC
 61 2019-11-29T15:42:00  *** _andrewtoth_ has quit IRC
 62 2019-11-29T15:49:05  <sipa> waxwing: one reason to keep the 520 byte limit is because the more you change the more justification you need
 63 2019-11-29T15:49:17  <sipa> p2sh redeemscripts are limkted to 520 bytes
 64 2019-11-29T15:51:12  <sipa> waxwing: there are certainly use cases for having unexecuted things in script (mostly because expanding everything to separate leaves would be intractable due to too many combinations)
 65 2019-11-29T16:10:34  *** andytoshi has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 66 2019-11-29T16:10:34  *** andytoshi has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 67 2019-11-29T16:48:45  <waxwing> it's interesting. i was forgetting checksigadd, and the thought occurred to me (in context of 'threshold' instantiated as leaves) that whatever does get executed is like a second-level version of the "taproot" assumption: there is total agreement *within* that executed branch. sort of made me think that it 'should' always work like that.
 68 2019-11-29T16:49:07  <waxwing> but that just makes me realise i need to re-read the rationale for op_checksigadd since it doesn't work like that at all.
 69 2019-11-29T16:51:06  <waxwing> oh right, you wanted something new for batch verify, and you didn't want to ditch a non-musig type multisig. so in that case it's unavoidable to have something *like* that.
 70 2019-11-29T16:51:57  <sipa> yeah we thought about a
 71 2019-11-29T16:52:33  <sipa> yeah we thought about a replacement for cms/cmsv where you'd just give a signature for every key (rather than only passing ones, by providing empties for those)
 72 2019-11-29T16:52:50  <sipa> but csa is barely less efficient, and more flexible than that
 73 2019-11-29T17:01:23  <sipa> since the 201 ops limit is gone we arguably do not actually need op_csa as much anymore
 74 2019-11-29T17:08:38  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
 75 2019-11-29T17:09:22  *** rottensox has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 76 2019-11-29T17:10:32  *** dr-orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 77 2019-11-29T17:20:59  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
 78 2019-11-29T17:24:18  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
 79 2019-11-29T17:28:10  *** b10c has quit IRC
 80 2019-11-29T17:39:52  *** dr-orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 81 2019-11-29T17:41:17  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
 82 2019-11-29T18:10:14  *** _andrewtoth_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 83 2019-11-29T18:46:26  *** b10c has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 84 2019-11-29T19:06:52  <waxwing> isn't the weight of the non-witness part of a txinput 4x(32+4+4) (roughly), i.e. 160 ish, so why is it 1 free sigop if it's 50 wu/sig op?
 85 2019-11-29T19:11:17  *** dr-orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 86 2019-11-29T19:24:55  *** b10c has quit IRC
 87 2019-11-29T19:30:21  <sipa> waxwing: lame rationalization: looking up and spending an input also has a cost
 88 2019-11-29T19:57:32  *** _andrewtoth_ has quit IRC
 89 2019-11-29T19:57:44  *** _andrewtoth_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 90 2019-11-29T20:15:15  *** b10c has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 91 2019-11-29T20:57:13  *** rottensox has quit IRC
 92 2019-11-29T21:01:24  *** b10c has quit IRC
 93 2019-11-29T21:02:24  *** luke-jr has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 94 2019-11-29T21:21:45  *** dr_orlovsky has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 95 2019-11-29T22:01:12  *** jonatack_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 96 2019-11-29T22:03:26  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
 97 2019-11-29T22:04:36  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 98 2019-11-29T22:53:27  *** belcher has quit IRC
 99 2019-11-29T22:57:44  *** jonatack has joined ##taproot-bip-review
100 2019-11-29T23:15:36  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
101 2019-11-29T23:44:38  *** jonatack has quit IRC
102 2019-11-29T23:53:39  *** jonatack has joined ##taproot-bip-review