From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C45C0037 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7635041820 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:27:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 7635041820 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=LQNdY5yo X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p14hfyjOGjmd for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5979D4181C for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:27:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 5979D4181C Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-50e7dd8bce8so3853974e87.1 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:27:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1703852847; x=1704457647; darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:references:in-reply-to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KoyKh8Pk/7/KHMVXC4Lp8RnpzRLCJ8WM6oa79tV70Ds=; b=LQNdY5yoLS7VIv35A9v73FDbcQg+W9ENBeDLZYh+HeZGW2h2HDG0cXDPzOCiga4zyY jTuO7+n5/6Zj+tG/Vhx3KcIws0Pwl8vfomXXs52tN6DhPIooy/cFqc0GPy3UQnAvwgHU HPIRfwL+lpEZy1u45W2roWplOTxT2M/OUntL7icaG9EtaDDw7HBwtcTCNutjKOUevagL l8CFMcfbWDSX4ATfXFzUhJS4SwkLGDZ6GUPBUk3GwP70mG7wIOppDHRkPz/9YL9LmzFC Ww2v3y8rpcJC/S7rK4h3zqIY9CKI8+3KJ48hF5oVmYYDY1ssbPjY1WduKhpE4z0KuRTg JgWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703852847; x=1704457647; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:references:in-reply-to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KoyKh8Pk/7/KHMVXC4Lp8RnpzRLCJ8WM6oa79tV70Ds=; b=nAeoe2GkituHxgWT+BZLrnDFH07mjDmUmmlE/tqjYptnVTvz2+ON7Kj+cqJi08F817 iyVSgzmC2ezfhVhfxNLXX4XAFjYCywvL4VWPCmx7MO4cFS6hlCvGbLExwtQMNd0WZyOK 5FNedoDC6FI1I4EpLD5Ftml9hq1P28LHw7qcmbRnRol8e2sMK9BukU/GD79Ay4aro9vd Hl+/Si1c9/mUHnayaQKGG2TOir3NrkN324NITaTT8JgFUqw6R1HwCl7nCcOoSS2WpOHm cWFLLVyQDDaWLwBXhMNMdkvX7ssuveuSDMOEolTnXxvAUebwBX4iZpWJLBwg8cIEsZf3 R+nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyky8QSh0pOQln+GUBvCds8GaLIU3WYDHJ7SStp4Hu2f9qqgWKV 9yKhrqVD1ESZ6nJbwH0NDRXsqkRJgSof1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE7loCwUbsHm00jnszrrhBnwjRtImzUz+sDLd/Uq1BJX62YPujWTqOr9+7tuCpV+C1SvCxRIg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3451:b0:50b:ea8e:b42c with SMTP id j17-20020a056512345100b0050bea8eb42cmr4456831lfr.97.1703852846447; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.176] ([89.174.3.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ep15-20020a056512484f00b0050e8223688fsm1017285lfb.30.2023.12.29.04.27.25 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:27:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <980df778-cc94-4f98-8eb1-cbb321883369@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:27:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: References: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Greg Tonoski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:33:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:27:30 -0000 > Unfortunately, as near as I can tell there is no sensible way to > prevent people from storing arbitrary data in witnesses ... To prevent "from storing arbitrary data in witnesses" is the extreme case of the size limit discussed in this thread. Let's consider it along with other (less radical) options in order not to lose perspective, perhaps. > ...without incentivizing even worse behavior and/or breaking > legitimate use cases. I can't find evidence that would support the hypothesis. There had not been "even worse behavior and/or breaking legitimate use cases" observed before witnesses inception. The measure would probably restore incentives structure from the past. As a matter of fact, it is the current incentive structure that poses the problem - incentivizes worse behavior ("this sort of data is toxic to the network") and breaks legitimate use cases like a simple transfer of BTC. > If we ban "useless data" then it would be easy for would-be data > storers to instead embed their data inside "useful" data such as dummy > signatures or public keys. There is significant difference when storing data as dummy signatures (or OP_RETURN) which is much more expensive than (discounted) witness. Witness would not have been chosen as the storage of arbitrary data if it cost as much as alternatives, e.g. OP_RETURN. Also, banning "useless data" seems to be not the only option suggested by the author who asked about imposing "a size limit similar to OP_RETURN". > But from a technical point of view, I don't see any principled way to > stop this. Let's discuss ways that bring improvement rather than inexistence of a perfect technical solution that would have stopped "toxic data"/"crap on the chain". There are at least a few: - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29146 - deprecate OP_IF opcode. I feel like the elephant in the room has been brought up. Do you want to maintain Bitcoin without spam or a can't-stop-crap alternative, everybody?