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, vju...@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 leo...@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, vju...@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).
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
