public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
To: Greg Tonoski <gregtonoski@gmail.com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 02:58:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ8n0GFj3S88qW+rk2RcLg-1JH9aL22YtTB-55EEQzsYw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <980df778-cc94-4f98-8eb1-cbb321883369@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2669 bytes --]

Bitcoin already has a spam prevention system called "fees".   I don't
believe it's insufficient.  The only issue is the stochastic nature of its
effectiveness

Which can be resolved with things like payment pools, tree payments (
https://utxos.org/uses/scaling/), etc.



On Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:33 AM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3819 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-12-30  9:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-27 12:44 [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits Robert Dickinson
2023-01-27 12:58 ` rot13maxi
2023-01-28 10:58   ` alicexbt
2023-01-29 10:34     ` Robert Dickinson
2023-01-31  8:58       ` Erik Aronesty
2023-01-27 13:21 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-01-27 15:43   ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-01-28 16:47     ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-01-28  4:26   ` Robert Dickinson
2023-12-29 12:27   ` Greg Tonoski
2023-12-29 19:01     ` Nagaev Boris
2023-12-30  9:58     ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2024-01-01 13:33       ` Brad Morrison
2024-01-01 16:08         ` Erik Aronesty
2024-01-03  9:11           ` Brad Morrison
2024-01-03 13:05             ` Erik Aronesty
2023-02-03 19:56 ` Melvin Carvalho
2023-02-04 14:25   ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-06 16:39     ` Erik Aronesty
2023-02-06 17:31 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2023-02-06 18:05   ` Erik Aronesty
2023-02-07 12:17     ` Aymeric Vitte

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAJowKgJ8n0GFj3S88qW+rk2RcLg-1JH9aL22YtTB-55EEQzsYw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=erik@q32.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=gregtonoski@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox