Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED8EC0032 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:39:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9E54F3E0 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:39:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org EB9E54F3E0 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=ge0kXDDf X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4Te1dR0j7Zl for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:39:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206384F3A9 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:39:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 206384F3A9 Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-da0359751dbso1685455276.1 for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:39:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699007976; x=1699612776; darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=B1Yt0Lba6XYCxfh+d9XjcuSuWtTyXo/1OijLQyN89Mc=; b=ge0kXDDfA5UdhT82Nu707g5qxjsr1f6SPv0HFOaGYkJwzuwtOOmg1TujYHESkRE9L6 ad+yxY5RZe7thlA2QOmdLkGL3BKl8Vw8W2etL/C+YW9MBE3t9lU1ASLE35OMhY+0gTPl /A5hoSL/61d/3onbM9N2a9WzDW9NeDmRtSvm9sds6tzXvWeQmm4jGH6OgzzeJJmDixZn Pw6Bpr9S3JWgzJiwCdNZQvr9BGLGMqLHCGqHWUni2UhyhRXrwkgtMhTaYaUdd/EkpQZ5 J56I8c7U/h3xCMgD4JZBkWLjYOYVpjuXOccZmJQtQtc9z5IWqsdjWcCdFdeAjxaftR41 sqXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699007976; x=1699612776; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=B1Yt0Lba6XYCxfh+d9XjcuSuWtTyXo/1OijLQyN89Mc=; b=NvaGWd+KYnuKSgErFco5p+/TXygnfM5zLLK9vQQwNp/ayostJ2NMhn9f84YrRhLFBd DRHGDRNerb9q+b0Al5StRnfBaAYnDgMQBLdKYt5eX3Q/tRldmEfX8IinBkydgnb/CMKy myB0GahgNVScrNQAbsLZtJ9WxQ4T16eSrG8yAwX8iBukzL1xSk90FNtErJDQ2gVQ8TG1 3PuNA79Xr11yJzEPu70LpOWEhXxKx3Ns9ZW2ff5aZUQv2a/bVL0dHm3J5LsnzzDPGdBY 0ude8OToaTLm9iPGjre+/d33OaYpDZBb8hvmf/AsVrOgH0pnSh6XrnfaQ+Jhs6V9TmRo xn2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLy1jnwrUheddXhUs1JciUEnoyIhALtT/dZM6UHKzGaS5S5Tzj hlii7dkq5pOu18sAzwteXXe/YFv0IM3brQhkpgCFGS4p X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcDQSKMLUu1aov9S2HTDVyiX+cPeUPvpbprU+TcwKod94tHXl7yhMBzvb6GTKvFfovR5y4invwTjh7a6ZyIOw= X-Received: by 2002:a25:2385:0:b0:d9b:c9be:f3d9 with SMTP id j127-20020a252385000000b00d9bc9bef3d9mr1721871ybj.29.1699007975840; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:39:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <46e412585ce8143727c40c66edae83e0@sonic.net> In-Reply-To: <46e412585ce8143727c40c66edae83e0@sonic.net> From: Melvin Carvalho Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:39:23 +0100 Message-ID: To: Brad Morrison Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dee52006093d1e89" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:45:37 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:39:42 -0000 --000000000000dee52006093d1e89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable p=C3=A1 3. 11. 2023 v 11:16 odes=C3=ADlatel Brad Morrison napsal: > Melvin/all, > > You make good points about high network fees being disruptive. > > What is more disruptive are spikes & valleys (instability) that last > longer than the mempool cycle can handle. > > Right now, https://mempool.space/ indicates that there are about 105,000 > unconfirmed transactions and that current memory usage is 795 mb of 300 m= b. > > We could compare the bitcoin networks' ability to process transactions to > the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO - > https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx) task of ensuring the CA > electrical grid stays supplied with the least expensive electricity > available and does not get overloaded, nor has to export too much > electrical power to other grids in times of surplus. > > A big part of doing that is noticing past trends and preparing for future > growth, if that is the goal. > > Expanding the block size is the simplest way to expand network capacity > and lower transactional costs. > The block size is a sensitive topic, as it has been used as an attack vector in the past. It is now a loaded topic baked into the mythology of the project. Discourse on the topic benefit from a dispassionate analysis of the technical trade-offs and what properties of the network they affect. There exists an attack on bitcoin where the lowest fee rises to make it much harder to participate. You could imagine a well funded attack, creating fees of, say, 10,000 sats/vbyte, for a period of time. While this could be viewed as positive from one lens (miners benefit), there would at least be a vocal minority, legitimately arguing that this is disruptive to the ordinary function of the network. It's worth recognizing that a bigger block size makes this kind of disruptive attack more expensive. It's a tricky topic because of the history, and because some of the "spam" may be seen by some as legitimate. I think in the long-term miners and users will treat the fee auction in new ways, with the use of AI algorithms. Trillions are transmitted through the bitcoin network. A fraction of that is captured. As the block subsidy goes away over the next 2 decades, it might lead to a kind of "AI mexican standoff" where the highest value transactions pay a bit more for priority transfers. AI will likely change the game theory, and we'll find out how, over the next 2 epochs. If that is the case, then block size can increase with hardware advances, while maintaining much valued decentralized properties of the network. In this regard we probably would benefit from things like stratumv2 and utreexo being rolled out first. > Thank you, > > Brad > > > > On 2023-05-08 09:37, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odes=C3=ADlatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin >> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 >> having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced ou= t >> and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not >> been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion >> because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte. >> >> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how >> its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use= of >> the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intend= ed >> to be used as. >> >> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take >> an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, a= nd >> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for >> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin >> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a >> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely >> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - sho= uld >> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits i= nto >> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which >> defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed thes= e >> unintended consequences? >> >> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level >> and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Tapr= oot >> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road >> until minimum next release. >> >> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, >> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but w= e >> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We >> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible befo= re. >> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kin= d >> of congestion can never happen again using Taproot. >> > > This is a nuanced and sensitive topic that has been discussed previously, > as far back as 2010, in a conversation between Gavin and Satoshi: > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1617#msg1617 > > Gavin: That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides i= t > would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions t= o > transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... > Satoshi: That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other > things we can do if necessary. > > High fees could be viewed as disruptive to the network, but less > disruptive than regular large reorgs, or a network split. > > It might be beneficial to brainstorm the "other things we can do if > necessary". > > A simple observation is that increasing the block size could make it more > challenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some > decentralization. > > >> >> -Ali >> >> --- >> >> [1]: >> https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the= -promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --000000000000dee52006093d1e89 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
p=C3=A1 3. 11. 2023 v=C2=A011:16 odes= =C3=ADlatel Brad Morrison <bra= dmorrison@sonic.net> napsal:

Melvin/all,

You make good points about high network fees being disruptive.

What is more disruptive are spikes & valleys (instability) that last= longer than the mempool cycle can handle.

Right now, https://= mempool.space/ indicates that there are about 105,000 unconfirmed trans= actions and that current memory usage is 795 mb of 300 mb.

We could compare the bitcoin networks' ability to process transactio= ns to the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO - https://www.ca= iso.com/Pages/default.aspx) task of ensuring the CA electrical grid sta= ys supplied with the least expensive electricity available and does not get= overloaded, nor has to export too much electrical power to other grids in = times of surplus.

A big part of doing that is noticing past trends and preparing for futur= e growth, if that is the goal.

Expanding the block size is the simplest way to expand network capacity = and lower transactional costs.


Th= e block size is a sensitive topic, as it has been used as an attack vector = in the past.=C2=A0 It is now a loaded topic baked into the mythology of the= project.=C2=A0 Discourse on the topic benefit from a dispassionate analysi= s of the technical trade-offs and what properties of the network they affec= t.

There exists an attack on bitcoin where the lowe= st fee rises to make it much harder to participate.=C2=A0 You could imagine= a well funded attack, creating fees of, say, 10,000 sats/vbyte, for a peri= od of time.

While this could be viewed as positive from one lens (miners benefit)= , there would at least be a vocal minority, legitimately arguing that this = is disruptive to the ordinary function of the network.

It's worth recognizing= that a bigger block size makes this kind of disruptive attack more expensi= ve.

It's a tricky topic because of the history, and because some of the &= quot;spam" may be seen by some as legitimate.

I think in the long-term miner= s and users will treat the fee auction in new ways, with the use of AI algo= rithms.=C2=A0 Trillions are transmitted through the bitcoin network.=C2=A0 = A fraction of that is captured.=C2=A0 As the block subsidy goes away over t= he next 2 decades, it might lead to a kind of "AI mexican standoff&quo= t; where the highest value transactions pay a bit more for priority transfe= rs.=C2=A0 AI will likely change the game theory, and we'll find out how= , over the next 2 epochs.=C2=A0

If that is the case, then block size can inc= rease with hardware advances, while maintaining much valued decentralized p= roperties of the network.=C2=A0 In this regard we probably would benefit fr= om things like stratumv2 and utreexo being rolled out first.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

Thank you,

Brad

=C2=A0


On 2023-05-08 09:37, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:

=C2=A0

po 8. 5. 2023 v=C2=A013:55 odes=C3=AD= latel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > napsal:
Hi guys,
=C2=A0
I think everyone= on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool during the pas= t 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a high volume, = real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what is causing = the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since December 2017.= I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only with 1-5sat= /vbyte.
=C2=A0
Such justifiably= worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how its = creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of the= Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to = be used as.
=C2=A0
If the volume do= es not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an action? The bitc= oin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and users. Considering = that miners are largely the entities at fault for allowing the system to be= abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted r= ight now. Although this community has a strong history of not putting its f= ingers into pies unless absolutely necessary - an example being during the = block size wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken now, in the for= m of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail = the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for Taproot scr= ipts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?
=C2=A0
An alternative w= ould be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and introd= uce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot transacti= ons. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road until min= imum next release.
=C2=A0
I know that some= people will have their criticisms about this, absolutists/libertarians/max= imum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we need to find a solution for t= his that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to h= appen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a respo= nsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of congestion can never = happen again using Taproot.
=C2=A0
This is a nuanced and sensitive topic that has b= een discussed previously, as far back as 2010, in a conversation between Ga= vin and Satoshi:
=C2=A0
htt= ps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1617#msg1617

Gavin: That's a cool feature until it ge= ts popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment networ= k with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to a= ll their friends...
Satoshi: That's one of the reasons for transacti= on fees.=C2=A0 There are other things we can do if necessary.
=C2=A0
High fees could be viewed as disruptive to the n= etwork, but less disruptive than regular large reorgs, or a network split.<= /div>
=C2=A0
It might be beneficial to brainstorm the "o= ther things we can do if necessary".
=C2=A0
A simple observation is that increasing the block size could make it m= ore challenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some decentra= lization.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
-Ali
=C2=A0
---
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing lis= t
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/b= itcoin-dev

_______________= ________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>
--000000000000dee52006093d1e89--