Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
        bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan McClelland) (Einherjar)
   2. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Daniel Lipshitz)
   3. Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on OP_Return      outputs
      (Peter Todd)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:50:30 +0000
From: Einherjar <realeinherjar@proton.me>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Keagan McClelland
        <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan
        McClelland)
Message-ID:
        <EGcuw9I68gwGmFMMw_OstpvAHQ0sWleUi3Jfa8t9A14fa5PGYR2EAxJIjwKd8jo5JtUfmyw9taF1qEsQlVoXBpLUxixdlBpIOEhuXzTUSEc=@proton.me>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

About price space in the UTXO set:

I am highly concerned with that proposal.
The reason is this could restrict users to do proper UTXO management and lead to doxing and privacy issues. Now there are few costs associated to having lots of UTXOs, mainly fees associated with spending low-valued UTXOs.

> There is an open question as to whether or not we should figure out a way
> to price space in the UTXO set. I think it is fair to say that given the
> fact that the UTXO set space remains unpriced that we actually have no way
> to determine whether some of these transactions are spam or not. The UTXO
> set must be maintained by all nodes including pruned nodes, whereas main
> block and witness data do not have the same type of indefinite footprint,
> so in some sense it is an even more significant resource than chain space.
> We may very well discover that if we price UTXOs in a way that reflect the
> resource costs that usage of inscriptions would vanish. The trouble though
> is that such a mechanism would imply having to pay "rent" for an "account"
> with Bitcoin, a proposition that would likely be offensive to a significant
> portion of the Bitcoin user base.
>

> Cheers,
> Keags


Einherjar - E7ED 7E35 F072 CA83

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: publickey - realeinherjar@proton.me - 0xBF60A699.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:29:54 +0300
From: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
        <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Message-ID:
        <CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

For clarity purposes.

   1. Our research is based on monitoring main net transactions and network
   activity - as too is our risk engine. We do not engage in specific hashing
   pool assessments or research.
   2. It is not easily possible or comfortable to engage with our clients
   to offer up their client names and applications - the competition is fierce
   and like other industries it is not an acceptable approach to ask.
   3. The information offered by Coinpaid and posted on this list, provides
   root addresses which using tools like Chainanlysis, or
   similar service providers can confirm these addresses are associated with
   Coinspaid. This can validate a significant amount of our traffic.
   4. Based on the information provided it will be very possible to reach
   out to Max at Coinpaid - and will be able to confirm GAP600 use with
   Coinspaid. This is in addition to me posting an email from Max back in Dec
   2022 to this list confirming all of this information.
   5.  It is more than likely that Changelly has not implemented our
   service across all irts offerings, a large section of their business is
   servicing partners.

________________________________

Daniel Lipshitz
GAP600| www.gap600.com
Phone: +44 113 4900 117
Skype: daniellipshitz123
Twitter: @daniellipshitz


On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:38?PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com> wrote:

> Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I
> should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial
> experience and likewise your conclusions are false.
>
> I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite
> our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major
> client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics.
>
> As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440
> something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of adoption.
> Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing
> pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF.
> ________________________________
>
> Daniel Lipshitz
> GAP600| www.gap600.com
> Phone: +44 113 4900 117
> Skype: daniellipshitz123
> Twitter: @daniellipshitz
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28?AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:27:24AM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
>> > Your research is not thorough and reaches an incorrect conclusion.
>> >
>> > As stated many times - we service payment processors and some merchants
>> > directly  - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and process a
>> > significant amount of BTC they are a well known and active in the space
>> -
>> > as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max the CEO of
>> Coinspaid
>> > confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing there cluster
>> addresses
>> > to validate there deposit flows see here again -
>> >
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
>> > - if this is not sufficient then please email support@coinspaid.com
>> and ask
>> > to be connected to Max or someone from the team who can confirm
>> Conspaid is
>> > clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to do a call, I can
>> check
>> > again now and see if this is still the case and connect you.
>> >
>> > That on its own is enough of a sample to validate our statistics.
>>
>> Why don't you just give me an example of some merchants using Coinspaid,
>> and
>> another example using Coinpayments, who rely on unconfirmed transactions?
>> If
>> those merchants actually exist it should be very easy to give me some
>> names of
>> them.
>>
>> Without actual concrete examples for everyone to see for themselves, why
>> should
>> we believe you?
>>
>> > I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and they offered to email
>> pro
>> > @ changelly.com and they will be able to confirm GAP600 as a service
>>
>> Emailed; waiting on a reply.
>>
>> > provider. Also please send me the 1 trx hash you tested and I can see
>> if it
>> > was queried to our system and if so offer some info as to why it wasnt
>> > approved. Also if you can elaborate how you integrated with Changelly -
>> I
>> > can check with them if that area is not integrated with GAP600.
>>
>> Why don't you just tell me exactly what service Changelly offers that
>> relies on
>> unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would meet GAP600's
>> risk
>> criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily do test
>> transactions
>> if you told us what we can actually test. If your service actually works,
>> then
>> you can safely provide that information.
>>
>> I'm not going to give you any exact tx hashes of transactions I've already
>> done, as I don't want to cause any problems for the owners of the
>> accounts I
>> borrowed for testing. Given your lack of honesty so far I have every
>> reason to
>> believe they might be retalliated against in some way.
>>
>> > As the architect of such a major change to the status of 0-conf
>> > transactions I would think you would welcome the opportunity to speak to
>> > business and users who actual activities will be impacted by full RBF
>> > becoming dominant.
>>
>> Funny how you say this, without actually giving any concrete examples of
>> businesses that will be affected. Who exactly are these businesses?
>> Payment
>> processors obviously don't count.
>>
>> > Are you able to provide the same i.e emails and contacts of people at
>> > the mining pools who can confirm they have adopted FULL RBF ?
>>
>> I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that they and their
>> employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously I'm not going to
>> provide you with any private contact information I have. There's no need
>> to
>> expose them to further harassment.
>>
>> If you actually offered an unconfirmed transaction guarantee service,
>> with real
>> customers getting an actual benefit, you'd be doing test transactions
>> frequently and would already have a very good idea of what pools do
>> full-rbf.
>> Why don't you already have this data?
>>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on
        OP_Return       outputs
Message-ID: <ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130

Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my intent
to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output /
tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up additional
transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any
relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important
concern. But consider this email your notice.

At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard
transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these pinning
vectors may in fact exist already.


# References

1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


------------------------------

End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 6
******************************************