> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of
storage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are
used
> to produce Ordinals or something else)
True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficiently
limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'.
Why? Consider a worst case scenario using the maximum block size of
4MB and a block time of 10min, that's a growth of 210.24GB per year.
Some of that can be pruned, but let's just assume that you don't want
to. And currently the entire blockchain is roughly 500GB.
Now that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at
now. However, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB
hard drive for less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you
run out of space. That's less than $0.02 per day.
That is a worst case scenario.
Consider that since cost of hardware drops over time, it will become
less of a burden over time.
Also, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how much of that
actually needs to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforementioned
topic announcing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation that
uses utreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the
full UTXO set. Other initiatives exist as well.
There is definitely a lot of optimization potential for drastically
reducing how much space is actually needed by individual nodes.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM ,
<bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-dev-ow...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd)
2. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)
(Keagan McClelland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000
From: Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <dan...@gap600.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Message-ID: <ZMmxJoL1ZH4//8...@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:27:24AM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> Your research is not thorough and reaches an incorrect conclusion.
>
> As stated many times - we service payment processors and some
merchants
> directly - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and process a
> significant amount of BTC they are a well known and active in
the space -
> as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max the CEO of
Coinspaid
> confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing there
cluster addresses
> to validate there deposit flows see here again -
>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
> - if this is not sufficient then please email
supp...@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 '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/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700
From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclell...@gmail.com>
To: Hugo L <ashneverd...@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
(ashneverdawn)
Message-ID:
<calefgl2z3q90esnu0qv0mqphzacnov-5aks2tkgojy4l+14...@mail.gmail.com
<mailto:calefgl2z3q90esnu0qv0mqphzacnov-5aks2tkgojy4l%2b14...@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
There is an open question as to whether or not we should figure
out a way
to price space in the UTXO set. I think it is fair to say that
given the
fact that the UTXO set space remains unpriced that we actually
have no way
to determine whether some of these transactions are spam or not.
The UTXO
set must be maintained by all nodes including pruned nodes,
whereas main
block and witness data do not have the same type of indefinite
footprint,
so in some sense it is an even more significant resource than
chain space.
We may very well discover that if we price UTXOs in a way that
reflect the
resource costs that usage of inscriptions would vanish. The
trouble though
is that such a mechanism would imply having to pay "rent" for an
"account"
with Bitcoin, a proposition that would likely be offensive to a
significant
portion of the Bitcoin user base.
Cheers,
Keags
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:55?AM Hugo L via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which types of
transactions
> should be allowed or not on the network, in fact, when it comes
to privacy
> and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not
even able to
> distinguish different types of transactions from one another in
the first
> place.
>
> We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should
go to the
> highest bidder. This is already how the network functions and how it
> ensures it's security.
>
> Rather than thinking about this as "spam", I think it's useful to
> objectively think about it in terms of value to the marketplace
(fees
> they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage
consumed). It
> comes down to supply and demand.
>
> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals
aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of
storage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they
are used
> to produce Ordinals or something else)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , <
> bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> bitcoin-dev-ow...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (rot13maxi)
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000
>> From: rot13maxi <rot13m...@protonmail.com>
>> To: L?o Haf <leo...@orangepill.ovh>, "vju...@gazeta.pl"
>> <vju...@gazeta.pl>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
<RIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QFZr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=@
>> protonmail.com <http://protonmail.com>>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why
? Because
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a
standardization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>>
>> One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf
discussion is that
>> a small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class of transaction
is enough
>> for that class of transaction to consistently reach miners.
That means you
>> would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated
relay policy to
>> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being
included in
>> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and
able to send
>> non-standard transactions to miners out of band (
>>
https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae),
>> so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the
new rule to
>> prevent propagation to miners, those users can just go out of
band. Or,
>> they can simply change the script that is used to embed an
inscription in
>> the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?,
maybe they do 0
>> OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription people detect
this, they
>> have to update the rule and wait for 90%
>> + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people
see this,
>> they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and
businesses to
>> update.
>>
>> The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many more
participants (most
>> of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription update has to be
run by a
>> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for the
>> anti-inscription people.
>>
>> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of
today is
>> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive
than
>> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive
or because
>> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on
Bitcoin
>> becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural
course of
>> collectibles.
>>
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote
about spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
>>
>> Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rijndael
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <[
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30,
2023 at
>> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>>
>> > ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless
but in this
>> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be
circumvented by
>> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount,
>> minrelayfee or even the dust limit.
>> >
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why
? Because
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a
standardization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>> >
>> > As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a
strength
>> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being
activated by
>> default, the patch will become more and more effective as the
nodes update.
>> >
>> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a
solution
>> because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is
obviously a
>> big problem.
>> >
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote
about spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
>> >
>> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vju...@gazeta.pl a ?crit :
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> ?
>> >
>> >>> not taking action against these inscription could be
interpreted by
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Note that some people, even on this mailing list, do not
consider
>> Ordinals as spam:
>>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believe that
>> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regular
>> transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That
means, even
>> if developers would create some official version with that
option, then
>> some people would not follow them, or even block
Ordinals-filtering nodes,
>> exactly as described in the linked thread:
>>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network
tolerates this
>> kind of behavior
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can find
images,
>> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before
Ordinals. The
>> whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3 multisig outputs, see
>> transaction
>>
54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713.
You have
>> the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin by using part
of the
>> Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> That means, as long as you won't solve IBD problem and UTXO set
>> growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinals
>> specifically, people won't learn "this is bad, don't do that",
they could
>> read it as "use the old way instead", as long as you won't
block all
>> possible ways. And doing that, requires for example creating
new nodes,
>> without synchronizing non-consensus data, like it could be done
in "assume
>> UTXO" model.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Also note that as long as people use Taproot to upload a lot
of data,
>> you can still turn off the witness, and become a pre-Segwit
node. But if
>> you block those ways, then people will push data into legacy
parts, and
>> then you will need more code to strip it correctly. The block
774628 maybe
>> contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective of Segwit
node, but the
>> legacy part is actually very small, so by turning witness off,
you can
>> strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve
implementing a
>> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is
simply to
>> consider adding a standardization option. This option would
allow the
>> community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mining
pools
>> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.
>> >
>> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people use the
default
>> configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to
allow free
>> transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with
disabling dust
>> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does
anything
>> unusual.
>> >
>> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address all
cases. You
>> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE OP_IF" used
by Ordinals,
>> and easily bypass those restrictions. This will be just a cat
and mouse
>> game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they will be forced
to. The
>> Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could be good for
February or
>> March, but not now.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user 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 ? 07:30, vju...@gazeta.pl a ?crit :
>> >
>> >>>> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been
>> addressed more seriously
>> >
>> >>> Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is
>> preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state
of the
>> network would be "just do nothing", and every solution would be
>> backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and
people will
>> call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people will call it
"BSV". Leave
>> everything untouched, and the network will split into N parts,
and then you
>> pick the strongest chain to decide, what should be done.
>> >
>> >>>> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available
>> options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr.
>> >
>> >>> Because the real solution should address some different
problem, that
>> was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the
problem of
>> forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and
forever-growing UTXO
>> set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just
that, but
>> this code is not yet completed.
>> >
>> >>>> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject
inscriptions in the
>> mempool of a node.
>> >
>> >>> Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will
block one
>> inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are
present
>> even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That
means, if
>> you try to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular
>> indistinguishable transactions, and then you will go back to
those more
>> serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size.
>> >
>> >>>> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens,
concepts
>> that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
>> >
>> >>> The community also rejected things like sidechains, and
they are
>> still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some
unstoppable
>> concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What
>> inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They
believe
>> their rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the
case, as you
>> can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some
invalid Ordinals
>> transaction (because their additional rules are not enforced by
miners and
>> nodes).
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 98, Issue 20
>> *******************************************
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
------------------------------
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 3
******************************************
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
