{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"GamedevAlice [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"GamedevAlice [ARCHIVE] (npub18z…hlw24)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub18zra06q690wae9ty6sxxwf3jdcxuan2n4dq0ldynjddzz894jqesvhlw24","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2023-08-02\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The growth potential of the blockchain is limited by the amount of storage that can be added per block. However, the current cost of hardware makes it feasible to handle the growth. Efforts are also being made to optimize storage requirements.\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the\n\u003e cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of storage\nthat\n\u003e can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used\n\u003e to produce Ordinals or something else)\n\n\nTrue, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficiently\nlimited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'.\n\nWhy? Consider a worst case scenario using the maximum block size of 4MB and\na block time of 10min, that's a growth of 210.24GB per year. Some of that\ncan be pruned, but let's just assume that you don't want to. And currently\nthe entire blockchain is roughly 500GB.\n\nNow that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at now.\nHowever, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB hard drive\nfor less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you run out of\nspace. That's less than $0.02 per day.\n\nThat is a worst case scenario.\n\nConsider that since cost of hardware drops over time, it will become less\nof a burden over time.\n\nAlso, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how much of that actually\nneeds to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforementioned topic\nannouncing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation that uses\nutreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the full UTXO\nset. Other initiatives exist as well.\n\nThere is definitely a lot of optimization potential for drastically\nreducing how much space is actually needed by individual nodes.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM , \u003c\nbitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to\n\u003e         bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n\u003e         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n\u003e         bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e You can reach the person managing the list at\n\u003e         bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\n\u003e than \"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Today's Topics:\n\u003e\n\u003e    1. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd)\n\u003e    2. Re: Concern about \"Inscriptions\". (ashneverdawn)\n\u003e       (Keagan McClelland)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 1\n\u003e Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000\n\u003e From: Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e\n\u003e To: Daniel Lipshitz \u003cdaniel at gap600.com\u003e\n\u003e Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e         \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default\n\u003e Message-ID: \u003cZMmxJoL1ZH4//8Fg at petertodd.org\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:27:24AM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Your research is not thorough and reaches an incorrect conclusion.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e As stated many times - we service payment processors and some merchants\n\u003e \u003e directly  - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and process a\n\u003e \u003e significant amount of BTC they are a well known and active in the space -\n\u003e \u003e as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max the CEO of Coinspaid\n\u003e \u003e confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing there cluster\n\u003e addresses\n\u003e \u003e to validate there deposit flows see here again -\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html\n\u003e \u003e - if this is not sufficient then please email support at coinspaid.com and\n\u003e ask\n\u003e \u003e to be connected to Max or someone from the team who can confirm Conspaid\n\u003e is\n\u003e \u003e clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to do a call, I can\n\u003e check\n\u003e \u003e again now and see if this is still the case and connect you.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e That on its own is enough of a sample to validate our statistics.\n\u003e\n\u003e Why don't you just give me an example of some merchants using Coinspaid,\n\u003e and\n\u003e another example using Coinpayments, who rely on unconfirmed transactions?\n\u003e If\n\u003e those merchants actually exist it should be very easy to give me some\n\u003e names of\n\u003e them.\n\u003e\n\u003e Without actual concrete examples for everyone to see for themselves, why\n\u003e should\n\u003e we believe you?\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and they offered to email\n\u003e pro\n\u003e \u003e @ changelly.com and they will be able to confirm GAP600 as a service\n\u003e\n\u003e Emailed; waiting on a reply.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e provider. Also please send me the 1 trx hash you tested and I can see if\n\u003e it\n\u003e \u003e was queried to our system and if so offer some info as to why it wasnt\n\u003e \u003e approved. Also if you can elaborate how you integrated with Changelly - I\n\u003e \u003e can check with them if that area is not integrated with GAP600.\n\u003e\n\u003e Why don't you just tell me exactly what service Changelly offers that\n\u003e relies on\n\u003e unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would meet GAP600's risk\n\u003e criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily do test\n\u003e transactions\n\u003e if you told us what we can actually test. If your service actually works,\n\u003e then\n\u003e you can safely provide that information.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm not going to give you any exact tx hashes of transactions I've already\n\u003e done, as I don't want to cause any problems for the owners of the accounts\n\u003e I\n\u003e borrowed for testing. Given your lack of honesty so far I have every\n\u003e reason to\n\u003e believe they might be retalliated against in some way.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e As the architect of such a major change to the status of 0-conf\n\u003e \u003e transactions I would think you would welcome the opportunity to speak to\n\u003e \u003e business and users who actual activities will be impacted by full RBF\n\u003e \u003e becoming dominant.\n\u003e\n\u003e Funny how you say this, without actually giving any concrete examples of\n\u003e businesses that will be affected. Who exactly are these businesses? Payment\n\u003e processors obviously don't count.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Are you able to provide the same i.e emails and contacts of people at\n\u003e \u003e the mining pools who can confirm they have adopted FULL RBF ?\n\u003e\n\u003e I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that they and their\n\u003e employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously I'm not going to\n\u003e provide you with any private contact information I have. There's no need to\n\u003e expose them to further harassment.\n\u003e\n\u003e If you actually offered an unconfirmed transaction guarantee service, with\n\u003e real\n\u003e customers getting an actual benefit, you'd be doing test transactions\n\u003e frequently and would already have a very good idea of what pools do\n\u003e full-rbf.\n\u003e Why don't you already have this data?\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e -------------- next part --------------\n\u003e A non-text attachment was scrubbed...\n\u003e Name: signature.asc\n\u003e Type: application/pgp-signature\n\u003e Size: 833 bytes\n\u003e Desc: not available\n\u003e URL: \u003c\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 2\n\u003e Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700\n\u003e From: Keagan McClelland \u003ckeagan.mcclelland at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e To: Hugo L \u003cashneverdawn at gmail.com\u003e,  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e         \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about \"Inscriptions\".\n\u003e         (ashneverdawn)\n\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e         \u003c\n\u003e CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w at mail.gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"\n\u003e\n\u003e There is an open question as to whether or not we should figure out a way\n\u003e to price space in the UTXO set. I think it is fair to say that given the\n\u003e fact that the UTXO set space remains unpriced that we actually have no way\n\u003e to determine whether some of these transactions are spam or not. The UTXO\n\u003e set must be maintained by all nodes including pruned nodes, whereas main\n\u003e block and witness data do not have the same type of indefinite footprint,\n\u003e so in some sense it is an even more significant resource than chain space.\n\u003e We may very well discover that if we price UTXOs in a way that reflect the\n\u003e resource costs that usage of inscriptions would vanish. The trouble though\n\u003e is that such a mechanism would imply having to pay \"rent\" for an \"account\"\n\u003e with Bitcoin, a proposition that would likely be offensive to a significant\n\u003e portion of the Bitcoin user base.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Keags\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:55?AM Hugo L via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which types of transactions\n\u003e \u003e should be allowed or not on the network, in fact, when it comes to\n\u003e privacy\n\u003e \u003e and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not even able to\n\u003e \u003e distinguish different types of transactions from one another in the first\n\u003e \u003e place.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should go to the\n\u003e \u003e highest bidder. This is already how the network functions and how it\n\u003e \u003e ensures it's security.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Rather than thinking about this as \"spam\", I think it's useful to\n\u003e \u003e objectively think about it in terms of value to the marketplace (fees\n\u003e \u003e they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage consumed).\n\u003e It\n\u003e \u003e comes down to supply and demand.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the\n\u003e \u003e cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of storage\n\u003e that\n\u003e \u003e can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used\n\u003e \u003e to produce Ordinals or something else)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , \u003c\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e You can reach the person managing the list at\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\n\u003e \u003e\u003e than \"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...\"\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Today's Topics:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e    1. Re: Concern about \"Inscriptions\". (rot13maxi)\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Message: 1\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000\n\u003e \u003e\u003e From: rot13maxi \u003crot13maxi at protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e To: L?o Haf \u003cleohaf at orangepill.ovh\u003e, \"vjudeu at gazeta.pl\"\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         \u003cvjudeu at gazeta.pl\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e \u003e\u003e         \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about \"Inscriptions\".\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003cRIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QFZr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=@\n\u003e \u003e\u003e protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Hello,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because\n\u003e \u003e\u003e it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a\n\u003e standardization\n\u003e \u003e\u003e rule than to create new types of spam transactions.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf discussion is that\n\u003e \u003e\u003e a small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class of transaction is\n\u003e enough\n\u003e \u003e\u003e for that class of transaction to consistently reach miners. That means\n\u003e you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated relay policy\n\u003e to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being included\n\u003e in\n\u003e \u003e\u003e blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and able to\n\u003e send\n\u003e \u003e\u003e non-standard transactions to miners out of band (\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae\n\u003e ),\n\u003e \u003e\u003e so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the new\n\u003e rule to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e prevent propagation to miners, those users can just go out of band. Or,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e they can simply change the script that is used to embed an inscription\n\u003e in\n\u003e \u003e\u003e the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?, maybe they\n\u003e do 0\n\u003e \u003e\u003e OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription people detect this, they\n\u003e \u003e\u003e have to update the rule and wait for 90%\n\u003e \u003e\u003e  + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people see this,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and businesses\n\u003e to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e update.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many more participants (most\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription update has to be run by a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e anti-inscription people.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of today is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive than\n\u003e \u003e\u003e inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive or\n\u003e because\n\u003e \u003e\u003e there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on Bitcoin\n\u003e \u003e\u003e becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural course of\n\u003e \u003e\u003e collectibles.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam\n\u003e \u003e\u003e here is the link:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Rijndael\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev \u003c[\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at\n\u003e \u003e\u003e 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev \u003c\u003ca href=)\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless but in\n\u003e this\n\u003e \u003e\u003e case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be circumvented by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e minrelayfee or even the dust limit.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because\n\u003e \u003e\u003e it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a\n\u003e standardization\n\u003e \u003e\u003e rule than to create new types of spam transactions.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a strength\n\u003e \u003e\u003e because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being activated\n\u003e by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e default, the patch will become more and more effective as the nodes\n\u003e update.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a solution\n\u003e \u003e\u003e because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is obviously a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e big problem.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam\n\u003e \u003e\u003e here is the link:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vjudeu at gazeta.pl a ?crit :\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e ?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Note that some people, even on this mailing list, do not consider\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Ordinals as spam:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believe that\n\u003e \u003e\u003e blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regular\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That means,\n\u003e even\n\u003e \u003e\u003e if developers would create some official version with that option, then\n\u003e \u003e\u003e some people would not follow them, or even block Ordinals-filtering\n\u003e nodes,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e exactly as described in the linked thread:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network tolerates this\n\u003e \u003e\u003e kind of behavior\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can find images,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before Ordinals. The\n\u003e \u003e\u003e whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3 multisig outputs, see\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transaction\n\u003e \u003e\u003e 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713. You\n\u003e have\n\u003e \u003e\u003e the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin by using part of the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e That means, as long as you won't solve IBD problem and UTXO set\n\u003e \u003e\u003e growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinals\n\u003e \u003e\u003e specifically, people won't learn \"this is bad, don't do that\", they\n\u003e could\n\u003e \u003e\u003e read it as \"use the old way instead\", as long as you won't block all\n\u003e \u003e\u003e possible ways. And doing that, requires for example creating new nodes,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e without synchronizing non-consensus data, like it could be done in\n\u003e \"assume\n\u003e \u003e\u003e UTXO\" model.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Also note that as long as people use Taproot to upload a lot of data,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e you can still turn off the witness, and become a pre-Segwit node. But if\n\u003e \u003e\u003e you block those ways, then people will push data into legacy parts, and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e then you will need more code to strip it correctly. The block 774628\n\u003e maybe\n\u003e \u003e\u003e contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective of Segwit node, but\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e legacy part is actually very small, so by turning witness off, you can\n\u003e \u003e\u003e strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mining pools\n\u003e \u003e\u003e anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people use the default\n\u003e \u003e\u003e configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to allow\n\u003e free\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with disabling dust\n\u003e \u003e\u003e amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does anything\n\u003e \u003e\u003e unusual.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address all cases. You\n\u003e \u003e\u003e could use \"OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF\" instead of \"OP_FALSE OP_IF\" used by\n\u003e Ordinals,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e and easily bypass those restrictions. This will be just a cat and mouse\n\u003e \u003e\u003e game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they will be forced to. The\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could be good for February or\n\u003e \u003e\u003e March, but not now.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user leohaf at orangepill.ovh wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e I understand your point of view. However, inscription represent by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed themselves in\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e witness with a fee reduction.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field which could\n\u003e \u003e\u003e also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the\n\u003e standardization\n\u003e \u003e\u003e rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented similar\n\u003e abuses.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to more serious\n\u003e \u003e\u003e issues, not taking action against these inscription could be\n\u003e interpreted by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could encourage\n\u003e more\n\u003e \u003e\u003e similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive that the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Le 26 juil. 2023 ? 07:30, vjudeu at gazeta.pl a ?crit :\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e and I would like to understand why this problem has not been\n\u003e \u003e\u003e addressed more seriously\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state of the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e network would be \"just do nothing\", and every solution would be\n\u003e \u003e\u003e backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and people will\n\u003e \u003e\u003e call it \"Tether\", redistribute them, and people will call it \"BSV\".\n\u003e Leave\n\u003e \u003e\u003e everything untouched, and the network will split into N parts, and then\n\u003e you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e pick the strongest chain to decide, what should be done.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available\n\u003e \u003e\u003e options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Because the real solution should address some different problem,\n\u003e that\n\u003e \u003e\u003e was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the problem of\n\u003e \u003e\u003e forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-growing\n\u003e UTXO\n\u003e \u003e\u003e set. Some changes with \"assume UTXO\" are trying to address just that,\n\u003e but\n\u003e \u003e\u003e this code is not yet completed.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e mempool of a node.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will block one\n\u003e \u003e\u003e inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are present\n\u003e \u003e\u003e even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That means,\n\u003e if\n\u003e \u003e\u003e you try to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular\n\u003e \u003e\u003e indistinguishable transactions, and then you will go back to those more\n\u003e \u003e\u003e serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts\n\u003e \u003e\u003e that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e The community also rejected things like sidechains, and they are\n\u003e \u003e\u003e still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some\n\u003e unstoppable\n\u003e \u003e\u003e concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What\n\u003e \u003e\u003e inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They believe\n\u003e \u003e\u003e their rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the case, as you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some invalid\n\u003e Ordinals\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transaction (because their additional rules are not enforced by miners\n\u003e and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e nodes).\n\u003e \u003e\u003e -------------- next part --------------\n\u003e \u003e\u003e An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\n\u003e \u003e\u003e URL: \u003c\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 98, Issue 20\n\u003e \u003e\u003e *******************************************\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e -------------- next part --------------\n\u003e An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\n\u003e URL: \u003c\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 3\n\u003e ******************************************\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/492511f3/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}