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 EFB6CC002D for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3959414CE for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org D3959414CE Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=B5LkAyjf X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ZADBiwrLYASe for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:40:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 7E235408ED Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E235408ED for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id o14so3696214ilt.2 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 08:40:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=IJpOa0wHlKQTyj8SOTI9hTx/Ps6lLVACmHAwtR0HQB0=; b=B5LkAyjfX87E2BM8oF+vw4S6Hd+7NFwHb2V3oO1HbQDv7KwCdMAA55V+4VAS4LdlTp w79vv8lQlV3ZFR5pjofE7yx+fjhPI9Pw+CdJwaZpk0s/v0Vhk5hcI4PsnWX2JM5NOD6Y DY49pLjCT2qe8XDl5aOuaJPcLpi0S1i9W/CScnxYZHf07gwzO4t5WcWz/7HuyOhmlBJa OYw77gTEQJNGmf5MVGsf/4xjtSJGLYUFeCJ/RWtJT6gkYheQZ04UIKfUIGUIua+NfTSE HN+TJWsTwds7ORUwi4AkDRJYtjsaPB3ptqhJiTCKLuKOApbVqBeFXe+uVrB3wNaLyusg mAhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IJpOa0wHlKQTyj8SOTI9hTx/Ps6lLVACmHAwtR0HQB0=; b=dpfVWFqFzcTekO0on30kylW3tMc5dbE3YlB4Et8Oow7ze2xoBpiBVybY92Uj45iyhg 23UprF+6PsnpMpysLoGcqdDtktphrZNEE5lrWuf4Vy4AnluvFnGVnWq+bmgVY3Qrmdy5 Y8TDV+afB2/fB6rU4Dpj87wKvgB7DUk3QWwrp5Sx08ZTUzSFGN9ZOGUeYZygG/gJ70wu x8hABbsGflOQK34gSfRGohPF64Gtq2v2inZhnVTUYyTE0pV19ndi7ehU9QCu79K9VBxr 5jamXj8SU1v9AVTm9m/3dRoRRZ4w6xx5tu62skcjbdGO5fcxigct3SgIn2/lQalDGp7m yppQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1yzP3vfDE7EtxeVD7JNIUEUg48z2iBwG+d0+HB3HPuwqNKn6xa Zu9Nj62rFOT+G+ZyJEytbkw9oPpYkpX71OmbvQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5LDTB8iJFw339/sxDK5PjWcc/L1S3fGLuCBlIEGwQYkj3EAA/2v/mR7Yj19wr8wxa3pYoV8OUL4ENK+1/MJz4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:b4a:b0:2df:12cf:f8c7 with SMTP id f10-20020a056e020b4a00b002df12cff8c7mr2073632ilu.214.1659541245487; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: aaradhya@technovanti.co.in From: Aaradhya Chauhan Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 21:10:34 +0530 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006d6fea05e5580ee7" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 16:19:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee 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: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 15:40:48 -0000 --0000000000006d6fea05e5580ee7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" So, can we conclude by something, whether or not it would be possible and feasible in the future? On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 19:08, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:19:05PM +0000, aliashraf.btc At protonmail > wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 05:24:35PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > like a hashcash-based alternative broadcast scheme. > > Hi Peter, > > I've been mulling the idea of attaching work to low fee txns, both as a > compensation (e.g., in a sidechain, or an alt), and/or as a spam proof. > Unfortunately, both suffer from ASICs: > > For spam proof case, the adversary can easily buy a used/obsolete device > to produce lots of spam txns very cheaply, unless you put the bar very > high, making it almost impossible for average users to even try. > > The compensation scenario is pretty off-topic, still, interesting enough > for 1 min read: > > Wallets commit to the latest blockchain state in the transaction AND > attach work. > > It is considered contribution to the security (illegitimate chains can't > include the txn), hence isrewarded by fee discount/exemption depending on > the offset of the state they've committed to (the closer, the better) and > the amount of work attached. > > For this to work, block difficulty is calculated inclusive with the work > embedded in the txns, it contains. Sophisticated and consequential, yet not > infeasible per se. > > > > Unfortunately, this scheme is hard to balance with ASICs in the scene > too, for instance, you can't subsidize wallets for their work like with a > leverge, because miners can easily do it locally, seizing the subsidies for > themselves, long story, not relevant just ignore it. > > We're not talking about a consensus system here. Just a way to rate-limit > access to a broadcast network used by a small minority of nodes. It's > completely ok to simply change the PoW algorithm in the _highly_ unlikely > event > someone bothers to build an ASIC for it. Since this isn't a consensu > system, > it's totally ok if multiple versions of the scheme run in parallel. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000006d6fea05e5580ee7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, can we conclude by something, whether or not it would = be possible and feasible in the future?

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 19:08, Peter T= odd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:19:05PM +0000, aliashraf.btc At proton= mail wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 05:24:35PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-de= v wrote:
> > like a hashcash-based alternative broadcast scheme.
> Hi Peter,
> I've been mulling the idea of attaching work to low fee txns, both= as a compensation (e.g., in a sidechain, or an alt), and/or as a spam proo= f. Unfortunately, both suffer from ASICs:
> For spam proof case, the adversary can easily buy a used/obsolete devi= ce to produce lots of spam txns very cheaply, unless you put the bar very h= igh, making it almost impossible for average users to even try.
> The compensation scenario is pretty off-topic, still, interesting enou= gh for 1 min read:
> Wallets commit to the latest blockchain state in the transaction AND a= ttach work.
> It is considered contribution to the security (illegitimate chains can= 't include the txn), hence isrewarded by fee discount/exemption dependi= ng on the offset of the state they've committed to (the closer, the bet= ter) and the amount of work attached.
> For this to work, block difficulty is calculated inclusive with the wo= rk embedded in the txns, it contains. Sophisticated and consequential, yet = not infeasible per se.
>
> Unfortunately, this scheme is hard to balance with ASICs in the scene = too, for instance, you can't subsidize wallets for their work like with= a leverge, because miners can easily do it locally, seizing the subsidies = for themselves, long story, not relevant just ignore it.

We're not talking about a consensus system here. Just a way to rate-lim= it
access to a broadcast network used by a small minority of nodes. It's completely ok to simply change the PoW algorithm in the _highly_ unlikely e= vent
someone bothers to build an ASIC for it. Since this isn't a consensu sy= stem,
it's totally ok if multiple versions of the scheme run in parallel.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000006d6fea05e5580ee7--