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 DCA0BC002A for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCB28462D for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:32:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org AFCB28462D 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=uYA1zARD 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 aGHbgLze4hCl for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:32:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CD76C8462A Received: from mail-yw1-x112f.google.com (mail-yw1-x112f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112f]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD76C8462A for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x112f.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-54f9e2d0714so8289287b3.1 for ; Tue, 09 May 2023 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683649939; x=1686241939; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OcyRiMqAx00A/yT89kc4gae8SKZitwV1npcKj3EACeU=; b=uYA1zARD49AUCFYtNAgegwzK7N2rTKhetN/JEysP8g+u7N0IkGfqUBiEVYOp3gnnW0 9+/gbT4Cu9DC/aU8U6URhWsyxE4duBN/xm+2qNite+UsCIIHJJprX+7aQm1oHt3VctEV Jf0gVoJcaAZNkpFOESzOFVbkEN8egEMHbc8nRZl5TbgPulJZI9Xl2ckPhMW6SydPBuI1 BVD+6D7Ps42V0jfhW/sidFwCsgWEifEuXDhSs9B5fst5UGoWVgM5aZuInvIxhVqfh8jb 8E2cfnruKEK6Gf9OM/wPDiun4Wu88If7pu7despcah05L1EodOTAXIkFa8zVo1K32iFy fcAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683649939; x=1686241939; 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=OcyRiMqAx00A/yT89kc4gae8SKZitwV1npcKj3EACeU=; b=d13akA4jGCrJyMsFWJCIe10oDteEoR4yzLijBkBEC519DVWbbqXJrQKQbS2RBSrf4j mbsi/0wj3rk9Qzu+FD7TV62uP9seFE588H4wJUK32N243WjYqVjn+gKiPri9ScG+Enkj 3p43eU+dR6NTsGH0G6GMB0YOaJibmADYXyIZePfygJOuHmuzbSMnw7tPA5kZi6CFg+fG joMDWVLtbFnkwErgqlDguHD4eKLvxiWaX2KpWa6yX66S2x3SioYnXlR/NAlhdkMrgKns uOYAlHdIE0ydnSKFwRm2Fprr92nWoarX4uJc1dlOqazYWWjVgGE+6/Z6Pvf7DNZLFYSx Ao+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzoQlIEWElc0oWY8+u+ee0JyP37zFykF7AiVeNnpfvf07WJzXsF hxwSUpFnoXm88yetk9Y4i5ujeTN39qoHWtAsdsm791g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6Xpr+vmh0s5X8GA/s0pWBxHbrgS8YSANBTgKbbZ1BhDCdjoLojH7N5tYEBYfVUL216mRl7msa3xKv+RdwKDqk= X-Received: by 2002:a25:aac3:0:b0:b9e:76b4:df36 with SMTP id t61-20020a25aac3000000b00b9e76b4df36mr14173324ybi.5.1683649939589; Tue, 09 May 2023 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0aea4ec5-7d6a-f358-3c20-854001588031@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 12:32:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000093525f05fb454c1e" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 May 2023 16:37:54 +0000 Cc: 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: Tue, 09 May 2023 16:32:22 -0000 --00000000000093525f05fb454c1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > no data at all exactly, which is why a relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs" and "fees" makes sense. it's clear that's a good definition of dust, and not too hard to get a working pr up for the network-layer. i get that your node will still route. i get that it would break timestamps, indeed, it would break all non-economic use cases if we made it a consensus change. but that's the point of the discussion. the question is whether breaking all non-economic use cases is the right move, given the game-theory of what underpins bitcoin i'm sad (honestly) to say that it might be it may very well be that bitcoin *cannot* be a "global ledger of all things" in order to remain useful and decentralized, and instead the monetary use case must be it's only goal also, i'm not really advocating for this solution so much as i would like a - rational conversation about the incentives - whether this solution would be an effective enough barrier to keep most non-economic tx off bitcoin obviously it's easy enough to evade if every non-economic user simply keeps enough bitcoin around and sends it back to himself so maybe it's a useless idea? but maybe that's enough of a hassle to stop people (it certainly breaks ordinals, since it can never be 1 sat) --00000000000093525f05fb454c1e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> no data at all

= exactly, which is why a relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs&q= uot; and "fees" makes sense.=C2=A0 =C2=A0it's clear that'= s a good definition of dust, and not too hard to get a working pr up for th= e network-layer.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i get that your node will still route.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0i get that it would break timestamps, indeed, it would break all non-= economic use cases if we made it a consensus change.

but that's the point of the discussion.=C2=A0 =C2=A0

<= /div>
the question is whether breaking all non-economic use cases is th= e right move, given the game-theory of what underpins bitcoin
i'm sad (honestly) to say that it might be

it may very well be that bitcoin *cannot* be a "global ledger= of all things" in order to remain useful and decentralized, and inste= ad the monetary use case must be it's only goal
=C2=A0
<= div>also, i'm not really advocating for this solution so much as i woul= d like a=C2=A0

- rational=C2=A0conversation about = the incentives=C2=A0
- whether this solution would be an effectiv= e enough barrier to keep most non-economic tx off bitcoin

obviously it's easy enough to evade if every non-economic user = simply keeps enough bitcoin around and sends it back to himself
<= br>
so maybe it's a useless idea?=C2=A0 =C2=A0but maybe that&= #39;s enough of a hassle to stop people (it certainly breaks ordinals, sinc= e it can never be 1 sat)

--00000000000093525f05fb454c1e--