Concern about "Inscriptions".
9 messages, 25 Jul to 3 Aug 2023. Started by Léo Haf.
Léo Haf (4), vjudeu (2), Aymeric Vitte, rot13maxi, GamedevAlice
Hello,
I am writing to you today because I am concerned about a significant bug that seems to be overlooked in recent versions of the software. The bug in question concerns the "inscriptions" developed by @rodarmor, and it worries me because, in just a few months, they have already reached a size of 11.8GB on the blockchain, causing issues with the UTXO set, which appears to be growing by about 25MB per day.
I understand that there may be discussions about the nature of these inscriptions, but personally, I find it hard not to consider them as spam. Their recurring nature and their impact on the size of the UTXO set and the blockchain itself seem concerning, and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed more seriously.
I would also like to point out that there are options in Bitcoin Core to choose the mempool policy, such as datacarrier or permitbaremultisig. However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr. Unfortunately, this patch is unusable for most people as it requires compiling Bitcoin Core.
So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempool of a node. Such a feature could give users the ability to customize their approach in managing these particular cases and help mitigate the negative impact of inscriptions on the network.
In addition to the technical issues, I also find that this situation raises ethical questions. Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
Therefore, I kindly request you, as Bitcoin developers, to take this concern into consideration and seriously consider implementing a feature that would allow users to reject inscriptions in the mempool. Such a measure would contribute to protecting the integrity of the network.
Thank you sincerely for your attention to this matter.
Léo.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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).
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.
Quoted text (20 lines)
> Le 26 juil. 2023 à 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : > >> 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). > > >
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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:
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (20 lines)
> Le 26 juil. 2023 à 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : > >> 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). > > >
See #28130 on bitcoin repo
Of course the intent is not to store "inscriptions" but a reference
Whatever you do bitcoin cannot avoid deviant practices
Therefore that one is the right way to go
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Quoted text (24 lines)
> Le 25 juil. 2023 à 23:19, Léo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoun@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > > > Hello, > > I am writing to you today because I am concerned about a significant bug that seems to be overlooked in recent versions of the software. The bug in question concerns the "inscriptions" developed by @rodarmor, and it worries me because, in just a few months, they have already reached a size of 11.8GB on the blockchain, causing issues with the UTXO set, which appears to be growing by about 25MB per day. > > I understand that there may be discussions about the nature of these inscriptions, but personally, I find it hard not to consider them as spam. Their recurring nature and their impact on the size of the UTXO set and the blockchain itself seem concerning, and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed more seriously. > > I would also like to point out that there are options in Bitcoin Core to choose the mempool policy, such as datacarrier or permitbaremultisig. However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr. Unfortunately, this patch is unusable for most people as it requires compiling Bitcoin Core. > > So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempool of a node. Such a feature could give users the ability to customize their approach in managing these particular cases and help mitigate the negative impact of inscriptions on the network. > > In addition to the technical issues, I also find that this situation raises ethical questions. Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected. > > Therefore, I kindly request you, as Bitcoin developers, to take this concern into consideration and seriously consider implementing a feature that would allow users to reject inscriptions in the mempool. Such a measure would contribute to protecting the integrity of the network. > > Thank you sincerely for your attention to this matter. > > Léo. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
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
Quoted text (44 lines)
> Le 27 juil. 2023 à 07:10, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : > > >> 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 à 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : >>> 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).
Hello,
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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, Léo Haf via bitcoin-dev <[bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, Léo Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
Quoted text (97 lines)
> 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 à 07:10, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : > >> > >> > >>> 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 à 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a écrit : > >>>> 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).
After looking into this more deeply (thanks to Luke Dashjr for pointing me in the right direction) it is now clear to me that storage isn't the real issue, but rather the "initial blockchain sync" time - in which storage certainly has a significant role to play, at least currently.
At the moment, UTreeXO seems like a promising first step. Perhaps there is a more efficient way to sync the chain without having to download everything and while still verifying it trustlessly.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 7:43 AM , < bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (341 lines)
> 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". (Keagan McClelland) (Einherjar) > 2. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Daniel Lipshitz) > 3. Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on OP_Return outputs > (Peter Todd) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:50:30 +0000 > From: Einherjar <realeinherjar@proton•me> > To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org, Keagan McClelland > <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan > McClelland) > Message-ID: > > <EGcuw9I68gwGmFMMw_OstpvAHQ0sWleUi3Jfa8t9A14fa5PGYR2EAxJIjwKd8jo5JtUfmyw9taF1qEsQlVoXBpLUxixdlBpIOEhuXzTUSEc=@ > proton.me> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > About price space in the UTXO set: > > I am highly concerned with that proposal. > The reason is this could restrict users to do proper UTXO management and > lead to doxing and privacy issues. Now there are few costs associated to > having lots of UTXOs, mainly fees associated with spending low-valued UTXOs. > > > 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 > > > Einherjar - E7ED 7E35 F072 CA83 > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: publickey - realeinherjar@proton•me - 0xBF60A699.asc > Type: application/pgp-keys > Size: 657 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.bin > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 249 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: < > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:29:54 +0300 > From: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com> > To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default > Message-ID: > < > CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ@mail•gmail•com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > For clarity purposes. > > 1. Our research is based on monitoring main net transactions and network > activity - as too is our risk engine. We do not engage in specific > hashing > pool assessments or research. > 2. It is not easily possible or comfortable to engage with our clients > to offer up their client names and applications - the competition is > fierce > and like other industries it is not an acceptable approach to ask. > 3. The information offered by Coinpaid and posted on this list, provides > root addresses which using tools like Chainanlysis, or > similar service providers can confirm these addresses are associated > with > Coinspaid. This can validate a significant amount of our traffic. > 4. Based on the information provided it will be very possible to reach > out to Max at Coinpaid - and will be able to confirm GAP600 use with > Coinspaid. This is in addition to me posting an email from Max back in > Dec > 2022 to this list confirming all of this information. > 5. It is more than likely that Changelly has not implemented our > service across all irts offerings, a large section of their business is > servicing partners. > > ________________________________ > > Daniel Lipshitz > GAP600| www.gap600.com > Phone: +44 113 4900 117 > Skype: daniellipshitz123 > Twitter: @daniellipshitz > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:38?PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com> wrote: > > > Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I > > should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack > commercial > > experience and likewise your conclusions are false. > > > > I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite > > our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major > > client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics. > > > > As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440 > > something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of > adoption. > > Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing > > pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF. > > ________________________________ > > > > Daniel Lipshitz > > GAP600| www.gap600.com > > Phone: +44 113 4900 117 > > Skype: daniellipshitz123 > > Twitter: @daniellipshitz > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28?AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote: > > > >> 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 -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +0000 > From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> > To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on > OP_Return outputs > Message-ID: <ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN@petertodd•org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130 > > Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my > intent > to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output > / > tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that > removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up > additional > transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any > relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important > concern. But consider this email your notice. > > At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard > transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these > pinning > vectors may in fact exist already. > > > # References > > 1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/ > > -- > 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/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 6 > ****************************************** >
Utreexo only seems to save us time if it is used in "bridge" mode otherwise it takes soft fork for all nodes to use Utreexo at the price of larger transaction.
The problem is not here for the moment, it is imperative to solve the problem of inscription that quickly brings us closer to the need for Utreexo.
Quoted text (313 lines)
> Le 3 août 2023 à 15:33, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> a écrit : > > After looking into this more deeply (thanks to Luke Dashjr for pointing me in the right direction) it is now clear to me that storage isn't the real issue, but rather the "initial blockchain sync" time - in which storage certainly has a significant role to play, at least currently. > > At the moment, UTreeXO seems like a promising first step. Perhaps there is a more efficient way to sync the chain without having to download everything and while still verifying it trustlessly. > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 7:43 AM , <bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto: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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> bitcoin-dev-owner@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto: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". (Keagan McClelland) (Einherjar) >> 2. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Daniel Lipshitz) >> 3. Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on OP_Return outputs >> (Peter Todd) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:50:30 +0000 >> From: Einherjar <realeinherjar@proton•me <mailto:realeinherjar@proton.me>> >> To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Keagan McClelland >> <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com <mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>> >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan >> McClelland) >> Message-ID: >> <EGcuw9I68gwGmFMMw_OstpvAHQ0sWleUi3Jfa8t9A14fa5PGYR2EAxJIjwKd8jo5JtUfmyw9taF1qEsQlVoXBpLUxixdlBpIOEhuXzTUSEc=@proton.me <http://proton.me/>> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> About price space in the UTXO set: >> >> I am highly concerned with that proposal. >> The reason is this could restrict users to do proper UTXO management and lead to doxing and privacy issues. Now there are few costs associated to having lots of UTXOs, mainly fees associated with spending low-valued UTXOs. >> >> > 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 >> >> >> Einherjar - E7ED 7E35 F072 CA83 >> >> Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: publickey - realeinherjar@proton•me <mailto:realeinherjar@proton.me> - 0xBF60A699.asc >> Type: application/pgp-keys >> Size: 657 bytes >> Desc: not available >> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.bin> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: signature.asc >> Type: application/pgp-signature >> Size: 249 bytes >> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature >> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.sig> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:29:54 +0300 >> From: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com <mailto:daniel@gap600.com>> >> To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org <mailto:pete@petertodd.org>> >> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default >> Message-ID: >> <CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ@mail•gmail•com <mailto:CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ@mail.gmail.com>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> For clarity purposes. >> >> 1. Our research is based on monitoring main net transactions and network >> activity - as too is our risk engine. We do not engage in specific hashing >> pool assessments or research. >> 2. It is not easily possible or comfortable to engage with our clients >> to offer up their client names and applications - the competition is fierce >> and like other industries it is not an acceptable approach to ask. >> 3. The information offered by Coinpaid and posted on this list, provides >> root addresses which using tools like Chainanlysis, or >> similar service providers can confirm these addresses are associated with >> Coinspaid. This can validate a significant amount of our traffic. >> 4. Based on the information provided it will be very possible to reach >> out to Max at Coinpaid - and will be able to confirm GAP600 use with >> Coinspaid. This is in addition to me posting an email from Max back in Dec >> 2022 to this list confirming all of this information. >> 5. It is more than likely that Changelly has not implemented our >> service across all irts offerings, a large section of their business is >> servicing partners. >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Daniel Lipshitz >> GAP600| www.gap600.com <http://www.gap600.com/> >> Phone: +44 113 4900 117 >> Skype: daniellipshitz123 >> Twitter: @daniellipshitz >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:38?PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com <mailto:daniel@gap600.com>> wrote: >> >> > Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I >> > should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial >> > experience and likewise your conclusions are false. >> > >> > I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite >> > our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major >> > client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics. >> > >> > As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440 >> > something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of adoption. >> > Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing >> > pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF. >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > Daniel Lipshitz >> > GAP600| www.gap600.com <http://www.gap600.com/> >> > Phone: +44 113 4900 117 >> > Skype: daniellipshitz123 >> > Twitter: @daniellipshitz >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28?AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org <mailto:pete@petertodd.org>> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org/> >> >> >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +0000 >> From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org <mailto:pete@petertodd.org>> >> To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on >> OP_Return outputs >> Message-ID: <ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN@petertodd•org <mailto:ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN@petertodd.org>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130 >> >> Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my intent >> to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output / >> tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that >> removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up additional >> transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any >> relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important >> concern. But consider this email your notice. >> >> At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard >> transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these pinning >> vectors may in fact exist already. >> >> >> # References >> >> 1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/ >> >> -- >> https://petertodd.org <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://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/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 6 >> ****************************************** > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev