From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D341EC002A for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 12:50:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7CC81E1B for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 12:50:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org AE7CC81E1B Authentication-Results: smtp1.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=CUvXJEaY 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 smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5D9zPlFoQy1 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 12:50:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 1819E81E17 Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1819E81E17 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 12:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-54f9e2d0714so7772967b3.1 for ; Tue, 09 May 2023 05:50:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683636615; x=1686228615; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LXj2UumHwEuaxJyMUnL4RdNxnonWjPTuvmOaolcT3xQ=; b=CUvXJEaYY8Y5sSIfSyTUCw02FVXaDTM1koyfJK/A223wxxIVoOX3PDnPm+7rldxXJb /81JoaGJqE8F0mLg2fLt96ovZxAh5dTkkkIALgEVQaELmuQouax1awnj1jAMuhCVmou0 9DyCQSZ2TQiMJas8FE3aamBBTlxiuuYUp9BVMn5vKfxoWcyyf4yYwHm4CFUR1NKGQUFd 3hn4hiP24Qhh7owQRVcu7KC9ogn2L/nAoYUmYdcH4EV55jfbfPvv797vLXnxYv7u/19a iV1tdPJCZgiv8SVRdtvdXKGdTA41ARwjVrdQPak9TGSxAiSX3y8il4IDvCLby0ZxKcHj oDPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683636615; x=1686228615; h=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=LXj2UumHwEuaxJyMUnL4RdNxnonWjPTuvmOaolcT3xQ=; b=dD466UFdcYvjwfbivKVDc+AAeN/CoBRA/h0aP1TMtpWFyr+1VBUtNoKPEn/jNxLBPM D/9jOU3UzmVoym5W1ifI7PP/VGtugO44Sg33HJ7e/QwwygNhl5B/FgJhXZKVpp+Igz4/ DUHuc/iHfZSIF3AQaJMVq2WkqbqzrKcA2S3NkF9c86tlbwkOi3LqXMi9GFUSrAwb8yP/ 4pemPRKdG7rrmzcbz7VA8sA2CsE69FKGz5nnWBoLR1jmgRVSI4p+Rue09s8VPPOb4+ZB VeQtc5gCpHOaQr35YY+C/uegwHG+9JtUC6yH/N66vjk23c/H7yNG5jOwHGCI9+vey6Bz mGXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw6jx9YOYaWSuLX6o33t8Yzo4QU6WA39Cd2H8ir+q133hVT5eCA BJ0nMOc0/4EKFsafs7lkKAfJ31a6VMig1BtqRJckO9n2HlOf X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6PJHljdYO2OkoybIppZyvpWlkvhCmN9NlqDe27pg+ByHtnJzpYJLouQywzXBEJXkq/wv45otjk7sDRPY7ycd0= X-Received: by 2002:a81:1d07:0:b0:55d:7fd0:e3b9 with SMTP id d7-20020a811d07000000b0055d7fd0e3b9mr14389117ywd.1.1683636614743; Tue, 09 May 2023 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <183080646-e0c2bb9eaf62640f6c5d6c34f66db1d9@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> In-Reply-To: <183080646-e0c2bb9eaf62640f6c5d6c34f66db1d9@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 08:50:03 -0400 Message-ID: To: jk_14@op.pl, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a4eaf05fb423276" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 May 2023 12:51:24 +0000 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: Tue, 09 May 2023 12:50:18 -0000 --0000000000005a4eaf05fb423276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to point out that I'm not an advocate for doing anything at this point aside from working on l2 just to make it inconvenient for people I just think the discussion of outputs and fees is interesting and related to the game theory portion of Bitcoin On Tue, May 9, 2023, 8:23 AM Jaroslaw via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Ok, I need to highlight one important thing well proven by this discussio= n > (like it or not)... > > Not the spam itself is the real reason of feeling: "something must be don= e" > The reason is: $30 fee per transaction (I hope you all agree) > > > Let me paraphrase some quotes used in this discussion, then: > > 1. Lack of block subsidy long term and necessity of $40 tx fee to > compensate it - "threaten the smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin networ= k > as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be used as." > > 2. "the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted right now" due > to lack of block subsidy and due to exorbitant $40 tx fees as an effect > necessary to keep the network security untouched > > 3. "Fee spikes aren't fun" and it's obvious that keeping the network > security only on enormous tx fees of active users and having passive user= s > as free-riders - isn't fun, too > > 4. by ignoring Bitcoin long-term security budget problem - "we indirectly > allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we al= so > have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of > tremendous $40 tx fees can never happen again" > > 5. "Action against exorbitant fees should have been taken months ago. > (...) It's a mistake that the" tail emission or other necessary solution = - > weren't implemented on time > > 6. "we need to find a solution for long-term horrible fees problem - that > fits everyone's common ground." > > > Yes, we need - instead of being still in a heavy denial state. > > No additional comment then, except this little one: > Delay of halving in case of 4 years long network difficulty regression > situation. > > > Regards, > Jaroslaw > > > > > > W dniu 2023-05-09 00:37:57 u=C5=BCytkownik Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napisa=C5=82: > > Action should have been taken months ago. Spam filtration has been a > standard part of Bitcoin Core since day 1. It's a mistake that the existi= ng > filters weren't extended to Taproot transactions. We can address that, or > try a more narrow approach like OP_RETURN (ie, what "Ordisrespector" does= ). > Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't really even need to wait for a major > release. > > (We already have pruning. It's not an alternative to spam filtering.) > > Luke > > > > > On 5/7/23 13:22, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev 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 out > 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 intende= d > to be used as. > > > If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take a= n > action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and > 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 - shou= ld > similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits in= to > the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which > defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these > unintended consequences? > > > An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level an= d > introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot > 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 we > need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We > indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible befor= e. > So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000005a4eaf05fb423276 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to point out that I'm not an advocate fo= r doing anything at this point aside from working on l2
just to make it inconvenient for people

I just think the discussion of ou= tputs and fees is interesting and related to the game theory portion of Bit= coin


On Tue, M= ay 9, 2023, 8:23 AM Jaroslaw via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ; wrote:


Ok, I need to highlight one important thing well proven by this discussion = (like it or not)...

Not the spam itself is the real reason of feeling: "something must be = done"
The reason is: $30 fee per transaction (I hope you all agree)


Let me paraphrase some quotes used in this discussion, then:

1. Lack of block subsidy long term and necessity of $40 tx fee to compensat= e it - "threaten the smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin network as a= peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be used as."

2. "the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted right now&q= uot; due to lack of block subsidy and due to exorbitant $40 tx fees as an e= ffect necessary to keep the network security untouched

3. "Fee spikes aren't fun" and it's obvious that keeping = the network security only on enormous tx fees of active users and having pa= ssive users as free-riders - isn't fun, too

4. by ignoring Bitcoin long-term security budget problem - "we indirec= tly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So= we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of = tremendous $40 tx fees can never happen again"

5. "Action against exorbitant fees should have been taken months ago. = (...) It's a mistake that the" tail emission or other necessary so= lution - weren't implemented on time

6. "we need to find a solution for long-term horrible fees problem - t= hat fits everyone's common ground."


Yes, we need - instead of being still in a heavy denial state.

No additional comment then, except this little one:
Delay of halving in case of 4 years long network difficulty regression situ= ation.


Regards,
Jaroslaw





W dniu 2023-05-09 00:37:57 u=C5=BCytkownik Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napisa=C5= =82:

Action should have been taken months ago. Spam filtration has been a standa= rd part of Bitcoin Core since day 1. It's a mistake that the existing f= ilters weren't extended to Taproot transactions. We can address that, o= r try a more narrow approach like OP_RETURN (ie, what "Ordisrespector&= quot; does). Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't really even need to wai= t for a major release.

(We already have pruning. It's not an alternative to spam filtering.)
Luke




On 5/7/23 13:22, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hi guys,


I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempoo= l during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such= a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is = what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen sinc= e 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 - tha= t's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and n= ormal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it = was intended 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, and use= rs. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for allowing = the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is b= eing disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong history of n= ot putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary - an example b= eing during the block size wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken= now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codeb= ase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules= for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these 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 T= aproot transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit th= e 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 we need to find = a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly a= llowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we a= lso have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of conge= stion can never happen again using Taproot.


-Ali


---


[1]:=C2=A0https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-mag= azine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-toke= ns/






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


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000005a4eaf05fb423276--