From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2D0C002A for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4143C41D24 for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:48:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 4143C41D24 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.i=@q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=KgQLZtec X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zr56FmjEGsPp for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:48:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org CF26141C62 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF26141C62 for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-b9e61ad0caeso1111419276.1 for ; Mon, 08 May 2023 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683575281; x=1686167281; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iSmtVdZxsibKDWoR5PRrl8AN4FRy0fQVOfIljA3goHg=; b=KgQLZtecnCsjmcsWsui8omB2LEfC9G0iKciBqzCBaPRwvCTswJCwPRTP66zsdUSTeE orWLsuub0FZynh+Tg6umWwLPjSPy+tuUoHjDN/GYUTs7HjuopBwTv/gT0jVooU0nZskW HVkYkul55zSf8dB0md/TuDcyoFb/rZgeiWDG07WoBPV06HG4pgaC9E3ouE06SstECMhP 2susVtItbV/ofjdenco0D0/It83oS8cEXRvh+/+nQx/emUR4gq56CPZNu49T7ikOJUUe v8rCKj/4FQZHAiYy5wxFs0CWhbzi5BzL2fiqGFtPheaeMUavb//HmTvK3OIr1umVGs2l MQpg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683575281; x=1686167281; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=iSmtVdZxsibKDWoR5PRrl8AN4FRy0fQVOfIljA3goHg=; b=ZUV5CWnEPXrkcUK0NowbzXlKRLdNWjUmmV6jzZTjsEbsdvsxaAu+izdJDYPEcYz8ed L+r0aHD2KNFp+15fVVASVQynLyOLVE5cxq04VQV69//y6INztwKX1JzieooyI/0wJzvP mUgiUIbEc0lybJcbE5zJbkOFgJLi3KdHqhBVNbfkgY2o8rsr73TT9DRLN7CyzUp4CTHG 1vjnOB494ZslgwlHtNT/NenurywE4ucXtGGsmypdm2DUu+Btc7XCvSnCPDJIA9QrCj65 03kR4FDd0UIZ5POCAgFb1CkQA8RqrnkIZIByVtmF4htnTqEwtAzmyDFP85XF/CVrgTWg Nz1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDx+Us456usO4MvRiYom93dR4upN2+lVgOymjli5Yd4FyKrEl+Pl 6Glq9Dembp2BGsV4NjOHTc4afa7UzzQ1itPcg4542nk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6nFX76GlzLSsA//XGD2xjqKHjN3dO8GFe0u7LBSH+WI8gPkefjrnOvXMglKzwk5A26tmwwzl5X1OVH6C6Ndkw= X-Received: by 2002:a25:abf0:0:b0:b8f:2156:c566 with SMTP id v103-20020a25abf0000000b00b8f2156c566mr11755477ybi.6.1683575280439; Mon, 08 May 2023 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <-2tdTjN6WfQI-CTPM49DiMOC2X5El1vJdlWTQvpalXAHKVLdFd_7ADpYN7Cz57v0fJSkaiG75fHJzcBtvJgn7Pj-RZrEk6hXk6Rp_1Y7SrE=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <-2tdTjN6WfQI-CTPM49DiMOC2X5El1vJdlWTQvpalXAHKVLdFd_7ADpYN7Cz57v0fJSkaiG75fHJzcBtvJgn7Pj-RZrEk6hXk6Rp_1Y7SrE=@protonmail.com> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 15:47:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008b1a7105fb33ea7c" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 May 2023 19:49:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Ali Sherief Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes? 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: Mon, 08 May 2023 19:48:03 -0000 --0000000000008b1a7105fb33ea7c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater than the amount receiving could possibly serve. what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin? are there any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transactions? we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no route dust) to start with On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folkson < michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote: > > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher > than the sum of the outputs > > And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted > Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I *want*=E2=80=8B to close= my > Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an > onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you want t= o > stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as well as > requiring a consensus rule change. > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher > than the sum of the outputs > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin >> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 >> having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced ou= t >> and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not >> been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion >> because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte. >> >> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how >> its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use= of >> the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intend= ed >> to be used as. >> >> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take >> an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, a= nd >> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for >> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin >> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a >> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely >> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - sho= uld >> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits i= nto >> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which >> defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed thes= e >> unintended consequences? >> >> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level >> and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Tapr= oot >> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road >> until minimum next release. >> >> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, >> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but w= e >> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We >> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible befo= re. >> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kin= d >> of congestion can never happen again using Taproot. >> >> -Ali >> >> --- >> >> [1]: >> https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the= -promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > --0000000000008b1a7105fb33ea7c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
im unclear as to the purpose=C2=A0paying an onchain transaction = fee greater than the amount receiving could possibly serve.

what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin?

are t= here any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transactions?

we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no route dust) = to start with




<= /div>
O= n Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote= :
>=C2=A0probably easier just to reject = any transaction where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs<= /div>

And prevent perfectly reasonable= transfers of value and attempted Lightning channel closes during fee spike= s? If I want=E2=80=8B to close my Lightning channel during a protrac= ted fee spike where I have to pay an onchain transaction fee greater than t= he amount I am receiving you want to stop me doing that? You are impinging = on a valid use case as well as requiring a consensus rule change.

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson = at protonmail.com
GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
<= span style=3D"font-family:SFMono-Regular,Consolas,"Liberation Mono&quo= t;,Menlo,monospace,monospace">
=20
=20

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

probably easier just to reject any transactio= n where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs

=


On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi guys,

I thi= nk everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool dur= ing the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a hi= gh volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what = is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since Dec= ember 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only = with 1-5sat/vbyte.

Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - t= hat's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and= normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as i= t was intended to be used as.

If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, shoul= d we take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, mi= ners, and users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault = for allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin tran= sactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong= history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary -= an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should similar ac= tion be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitco= in Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the val= idation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended conse= quences?
An alter= native would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level an= d introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot t= ransactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road u= ntil minimum next release.

I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, ab= solutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we nee= d to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We in= directly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible befor= e. So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kin= d of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.

-Ali

---

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>
https://lists.linuxf= oundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--0000000000008b1a7105fb33ea7c--