Keagan McClelland [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2020-05-06 to 2023-05-19
💬 Posted a total of 40 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, Lightning-dev, Mempool spam
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-08-02 10:19:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-08-02
🗒️ Summary of this message: There is a debate about whether to price space in the UTXO set to determine if transactions are spam. This could offend some Bitcoin users.
📝 Original message:
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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> bitcoin-dev-owner at 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 at protonmail.com>
>> To: L?o Haf <leohaf at orangepill.ovh>, "vjudeu at gazeta.pl"
>> <vjudeu at gazeta.pl>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>> <bitcoin-dev at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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-0001.html>

2023-08-02 10:19:22

- reply