From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BB6C0032 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22386414DB for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 22386414DB Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=IZIVGTh7 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 NeegtFWqMQdm for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 366 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 15:52:35 UTC DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 0B13B41486 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B13B41486 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.86.103] (99-39-46-195.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net [99.39.46.195]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E0C838AF85E; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:46:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1690991188; bh=T65yjGbM/xham84PQXTOrWb+Uzigt+9b86Q2nmw6/z8=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=IZIVGTh7Thyvte0GQbDrg4A7Bh+TtviMnr9+x5rnenoH7SNhJK8rIVTToCRfsSWPQ BnH9Zo48DhCQrnsyZEqzv15SV8uM73n/wJxRDT0w0ISYtz96wOG+zPbJDPI+hG+Wcm P0ehTPyeh50d8vOCDSpLGm4NiG3jcXjlQGsV0kII= X-Hashcash: 1:23:230802:gamedevalice256@gmail.com::/zi6XONsmVwH1dXB:h8k3 X-Hashcash: 1:23:230802:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::r4AHh2J1ELu4/dBs:Lf9 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:46:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 To: GamedevAlice , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: Content-Language: en-US, en-GB From: Luke Dashjr In-Reply-To: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 14:11:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions" 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: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 15:52:39 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes. Please, before participating in discussions of this topic, at least get a basic understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few years ago to get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s Luke On 8/2/23 07:07, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the > > cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of > storage that > > can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are > used > > to produce Ordinals or something else) > > > True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficiently > limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'. > > Why? Consider a worst case scenario using the maximum block size of > 4MB and a block time of 10min, that's a growth of 210.24GB per year. > Some of that can be pruned, but let's just assume that you don't want > to. And currently the entire blockchain is roughly 500GB. > > Now that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at > now. However, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB > hard drive for less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you > run out of space. That's less than $0.02 per day. > > That is a worst case scenario. > > Consider that since cost of hardware drops over time, it will become > less of a burden over time. > > Also, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how much of that > actually needs to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforementioned > topic announcing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation that > uses utreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the > full UTXO set. Other initiatives exist as well. > > There is definitely a lot of optimization potential for drastically > reducing how much space is actually needed by individual nodes. > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM , > wrote: > > 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: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd) >    2. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn) >       (Keagan McClelland) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000 > From: Peter Todd > To: Daniel Lipshitz > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion >         > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 833 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700 > From: Keagan McClelland > To: Hugo L , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion >         > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". >         (ashneverdawn) > Message-ID: >         > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:55?AM Hugo L via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which types of > transactions > > should be allowed or not on the network, in fact, when it comes > to privacy > > and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not > even able to > > distinguish different types of transactions from one another in > the first > > place. > > > > We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should > go to the > > highest bidder. This is already how the network functions and how it > > ensures it's security. > > > > Rather than thinking about this as "spam", I think it's useful to > > objectively think about it in terms of value to the marketplace > (fees > > they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage > consumed). It > > comes down to supply and demand. > > > > If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals > aren't the > > cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of > storage that > > can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they > are used > > to produce Ordinals or something else) > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , < > > bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > >> 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". (rot13maxi) > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000 > >> From: rot13maxi > >> To: L?o Haf , "vjudeu@gazeta.pl" > >>          > >> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > >>          > >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". > >> Message-ID: > >> > >> > >> protonmail.com > > >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why > ? Because > >> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a > standardization > >> rule than to create new types of spam transactions. > >> > >> One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf > discussion is that > >> a small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class of transaction > is enough > >> for that class of transaction to consistently reach miners. > That means you > >> would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated > relay policy to > >> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being > included in > >> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and > able to send > >> non-standard transactions to miners out of band ( > >> > https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae), > >> so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the > new rule to > >> prevent propagation to miners, those users can just go out of > band. Or, > >> they can simply change the script that is used to embed an > inscription in > >> the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?, > maybe they do 0 > >> OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription people detect > this, they > >> have to update the rule and wait for 90% > >>  + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people > see this, > >> they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and > businesses to > >> update. > >> > >> The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many more > participants (most > >> of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription update has to be > run by a > >> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for the > >> anti-inscription people. > >> > >> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of > today is > >> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive > than > >> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive > or because > >> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on > Bitcoin > >> becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural > course of > >> collectibles. > >> > >> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote > about spam > >> here is the link: > >> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617 > >> > >> Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Rijndael > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <[ > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, > 2023 at > >> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev < wrote: > >> > >> > ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless > but in this > >> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be > circumvented by > >> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount, > >> minrelayfee or even the dust limit. > >> > > >> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why > ? Because > >> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a > standardization > >> rule than to create new types of spam transactions. > >> > > >> > As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a > strength > >> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being > activated by > >> default, the patch will become more and more effective as the > nodes update. > >> > > >> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a > solution > >> because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is > obviously a > >> big problem. > >> > > >> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote > about spam > >> here is the link: > >> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617 > >> > > >> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vjudeu@gazeta.pl a ?crit : > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> ? > >> > > >> >>> not taking action against these inscription could be > interpreted by > >> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Note that some people, even on this mailing list, do not > consider > >> Ordinals as spam: > >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believe that > >> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regular > >> transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That > means, even > >> if developers would create some official version with that > option, then > >> some people would not follow them, or even block > Ordinals-filtering nodes, > >> exactly as described in the linked thread: > >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >>> as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network > tolerates this > >> kind of behavior > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can find > images, > >> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before > Ordinals. The > >> whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3 multisig outputs, see > >> transaction > >> > 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713. > You have > >> the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin by using part > of the > >> Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> That means, as long as you won't solve IBD problem and UTXO set > >> growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinals > >> specifically, people won't learn "this is bad, don't do that", > they could > >> read it as "use the old way instead", as long as you won't > block all > >> possible ways. And doing that, requires for example creating > new nodes, > >> without synchronizing non-consensus data, like it could be done > in "assume > >> UTXO" model. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Also note that as long as people use Taproot to upload a lot > of data, > >> you can still turn off the witness, and become a pre-Segwit > node. But if > >> you block those ways, then people will push data into legacy > parts, and > >> then you will need more code to strip it correctly. The block > 774628 maybe > >> contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective of Segwit > node, but the > >> legacy part is actually very small, so by turning witness off, > you can > >> strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >>> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve > implementing a > >> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is > simply to > >> consider adding a standardization option. This option would > allow the > >> community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mining > pools > >> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628. > >> > > >> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people use the > default > >> configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to > allow free > >> transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with > disabling dust > >> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does > anything > >> unusual. > >> > > >> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address all > cases. You > >> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE OP_IF" used > by Ordinals, > >> and easily bypass those restrictions. This will be just a cat > and mouse > >> game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they will be forced > to. The > >> Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could be good for > February or > >> March, but not now. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user leohaf@orangepill.ovh wrote: > >> > > >> >>> I understand your point of view. However, inscription > represent by > >> far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed > themselves in the > >> witness with a fee reduction. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field > which could > >> also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the > standardization > >> rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented > similar abuses. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to more > serious > >> issues, not taking action against these inscription could be > interpreted by > >> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could > encourage more > >> similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive > that the > >> Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve > implementing a > >> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is > simply to > >> consider adding a standardization option. This option would > allow the > >> community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >>>> Le 26 juil. 2023 ? 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta.pl a ?crit : > >> > > >> >>>> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been > >> addressed more seriously > >> > > >> >>> Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is > >> preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state > of the > >> network would be "just do nothing", and every solution would be > >> backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and > people will > >> call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people will call it > "BSV". Leave > >> everything untouched, and the network will split into N parts, > and then you > >> pick the strongest chain to decide, what should be done. > >> > > >> >>>> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available > >> options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr. > >> > > >> >>> Because the real solution should address some different > problem, that > >> was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the > problem of > >> forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and > forever-growing UTXO > >> set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just > that, but > >> this code is not yet completed. > >> > > >> >>>> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject > inscriptions in the > >> mempool of a node. > >> > > >> >>> Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will > block one > >> inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are > present > >> even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That > means, if > >> you try to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular > >> indistinguishable transactions, and then you will go back to > those more > >> serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size. > >> > > >> >>>> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, > concepts > >> that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected. > >> > > >> >>> The community also rejected things like sidechains, and > they are > >> still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some > unstoppable > >> concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What > >> inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They > believe > >> their rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the > case, as you > >> can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some > invalid Ordinals > >> transaction (because their additional rules are not enforced by > miners and > >> nodes). > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: < > >> > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> 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 98, Issue 20 > >> ******************************************* > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 3 > ****************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes. Please, before participating in discussions of this topic, at least get a basic understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few years ago to get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s

Luke


On 8/2/23 07:07, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of storage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used
> to produce Ordinals or something else)


True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficiently limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'. 

Why? Consider a worst case scenario using the maximum block size of 4MB and a block time of 10min, that's a growth of 210.24GB per year. Some of that can be pruned, but let's just assume that you don't want to. And currently the entire blockchain is roughly 500GB. 

Now that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at now. However, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB hard drive for less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you run out of space. That's less than $0.02 per day. 

That is a worst case scenario.

Consider that since cost of hardware drops over time, it will become less of a burden over time.

Also, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how much of that actually needs to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforementioned topic announcing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation that uses utreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the full UTXO set. Other initiatives exist as well. 

There is definitely a lot of optimization potential for drastically reducing how much space is actually needed by individual nodes.



On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM , <bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd)
   2. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)
      (Keagan McClelland)


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

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
        <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Message-ID: <ZMmxJoL1ZH4//8Fg@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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 --------------
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/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig>

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700
From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
To: Hugo L <ashneverdawn@gmail.com>,  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
        <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
        (ashneverdawn)
Message-ID:
        <CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:55?AM Hugo L via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which types of transactions
> should be allowed or not on the network, in fact, when it comes to privacy
> and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not even able to
> distinguish different types of transactions from one another in the first
> place.
>
> We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should go to the
> highest bidder. This is already how the network functions and how it
> ensures it's security.
>
> Rather than thinking about this as "spam", I think it's useful to
> objectively think about it in terms of value to the marketplace (fees
> they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage consumed). It
> comes down to supply and demand.
>
> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of storage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used
> to produce Ordinals or something else)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , <
> bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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". (rot13maxi)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000
>> From: rot13maxi <rot13maxi@protonmail.com>
>> To: L?o Haf <leohaf@orangepill.ovh>, "vjudeu@gazeta.pl"
>>         <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <RIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QFZr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=@
>> protonmail.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a standardization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>>
>> One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf discussion is that
>> a small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class of transaction is enough
>> for that class of transaction to consistently reach miners. That means you
>> would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated relay policy to
>> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being included in
>> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and able to send
>> non-standard transactions to miners out of band (
>> https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae),
>> so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the new rule to
>> prevent propagation to miners, those users can just go out of band. Or,
>> they can simply change the script that is used to embed an inscription in
>> the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?, maybe they do 0
>> OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription people detect this, they
>> have to update the rule and wait for 90%
>>  + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people see this,
>> they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and businesses to
>> update.
>>
>> The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many more participants (most
>> of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription update has to be run by a
>> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for the
>> anti-inscription people.
>>
>> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of today is
>> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive than
>> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive or because
>> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on Bitcoin
>> becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural course of
>> collectibles.
>>
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
>>
>> Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rijndael
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <[
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at
>> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>>
>> > ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless but in this
>> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be circumvented by
>> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount,
>> minrelayfee or even the dust limit.
>> >
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a standardization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>> >
>> > As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a strength
>> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being activated by
>> default, the patch will become more and more effective as the nodes update.
>> >
>> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a solution
>> because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is obviously a
>> big problem.
>> >
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
>> >
>> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vjudeu@gazeta.pl a ?crit :
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> ?
>> >
>> >>> not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Note that some people, even on this mailing list, do not consider
>> Ordinals as spam:
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believe that
>> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regular
>> transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That means, even
>> if developers would create some official version with that option, then
>> some people would not follow them, or even block Ordinals-filtering nodes,
>> exactly as described in the linked thread:
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network tolerates this
>> kind of behavior
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can find images,
>> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before Ordinals. The
>> whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3 multisig outputs, see
>> transaction
>> 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713. You have
>> the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin by using part of the
>> Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> That means, as long as you won't solve IBD problem and UTXO set
>> growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinals
>> specifically, people won't learn "this is bad, don't do that", they could
>> read it as "use the old way instead", as long as you won't block all
>> possible ways. And doing that, requires for example creating new nodes,
>> without synchronizing non-consensus data, like it could be done in "assume
>> UTXO" model.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Also note that as long as people use Taproot to upload a lot of data,
>> you can still turn off the witness, and become a pre-Segwit node. But if
>> you block those ways, then people will push data into legacy parts, and
>> then you will need more code to strip it correctly. The block 774628 maybe
>> contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective of Segwit node, but the
>> legacy part is actually very small, so by turning witness off, you can
>> strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a
>> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to
>> consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the
>> community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mining pools
>> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.
>> >
>> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people use the default
>> configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to allow free
>> transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with disabling dust
>> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does anything
>> unusual.
>> >
>> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address all cases. You
>> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE OP_IF" used by Ordinals,
>> and easily bypass those restrictions. This will be just a cat and mouse
>> game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they will be forced to. The
>> Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could be good for February or
>> March, but not now.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user leohaf@orangepill.ovh wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I understand your point of view. However, inscription represent by
>> far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed themselves in the
>> witness with a fee reduction.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field which could
>> also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the standardization
>> rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented similar abuses.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to more serious
>> issues, not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could encourage more
>> similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive that the
>> Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a
>> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to
>> consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the
>> community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>>> Le 26 juil. 2023 ? 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta.pl a ?crit :
>> >
>> >>>> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been
>> addressed more seriously
>> >
>> >>> Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is
>> preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state of the
>> network would be "just do nothing", and every solution would be
>> backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and people will
>> call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people will call it "BSV". Leave
>> everything untouched, and the network will split into N parts, and then you
>> pick the strongest chain to decide, what should be done.
>> >
>> >>>> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available
>> options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr.
>> >
>> >>> Because the real solution should address some different problem, that
>> was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the problem of
>> forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-growing UTXO
>> set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just that, but
>> this code is not yet completed.
>> >
>> >>>> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the
>> mempool of a node.
>> >
>> >>> Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will block one
>> inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are present
>> even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That means, if
>> you try to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular
>> indistinguishable transactions, and then you will go back to those more
>> serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size.
>> >
>> >>>> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts
>> that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
>> >
>> >>> The community also rejected things like sidechains, and they are
>> still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some unstoppable
>> concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What
>> inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They believe
>> their rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the case, as you
>> can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some invalid Ordinals
>> transaction (because their additional rules are not enforced by miners and
>> nodes).
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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 98, Issue 20
>> *******************************************
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html>

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

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 3
******************************************

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y--