Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92C6C0032 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700A960B94 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:07:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 700A960B94 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=Ri6fELc+ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.151 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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 smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3_HltMfIn12d for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EC30607A4 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:07:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4EC30607A4 Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3fe1d462762so31004115e9.0 for ; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 04:07:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1690974459; x=1691579259; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=db2JFztcGt6P6YW/US72QLfeoBUY0ZMhDfYMnXlqvk4=; b=Ri6fELc+HB+If4zfq1KM15MapMm9jVeK6oZw1fA7MoU2ayYWlt2tplbVXzG45M3Vso eZZ5Q9eCN80oDItfN5o2eUKhRzolwrqz9YG+OC9k4RaHpUTFY64gUTKb3qj+gUsM74gF X+2CPcfmlhRonVQqKhicdRhB6F78AlFGB5tYlCjFNhFumw1K2+srfOsUd+00kW0Y1k0T shVgozPiXwzP8TG8GPJ2h+P9Qvyl91cLE+iWaNDv9X532akPaRg4ZzKfLgKUpFu7Yn5P Yat7hZ6aWldpLPvvwJosCcJWiSFzYi3h7KKdWudgnYhzx7IljUFa57FWB/e5UJsGCgCv UWtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690974459; x=1691579259; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=db2JFztcGt6P6YW/US72QLfeoBUY0ZMhDfYMnXlqvk4=; b=W++aWJJB1q46vGoc5E1msGBbbe0k9IJXMCrctADDFNMq1inU9QRjnbxC5fEFTtMine 6d16Yos2c0PUz9M+I0XL95uC6JyMbNTk5NAEc535oxZKkyGQ9kVsVNvJgxTipC0WQo45 O4RVLhronoMi+73zzw8x6maDb9eHghJDjhyNSR/LUr9TGCTkNTeac/+iLoGcCLonq+tR d1j5j9fpR7ilpTJ69MZWju4iZEU7m1gQO+cusdwlONCZcnsKwlwGVmFNC7zlS8nHaUVX nwF4YojBJ2J97wBklnak4CWQwVLxdJN1W6zrD3GHDeVFlaIErwfvLSbjFmga40n8yt/r P+4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLbRzclD9g/Qr5Yz2EC43b4M4bw2SNNUhaMtGIxuiPDPGRY6Ds8O ps7F4zapXwgSo088U1CxxT+3otztmddGyQkXI2wvjp1a X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlEi3sK8XVhCbL6o/5N5JsWASQppJaOXSMmB06HVYdtwCim4jJpIo3c/fRZ/0/63s32ik+AtwdVGTs884xdRbUk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2312:b0:3fe:22a7:310a with SMTP id 18-20020a05600c231200b003fe22a7310amr4772986wmo.33.1690974458915; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 04:07:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: GamedevAlice Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:07:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2afa70601eeab92" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 15:22:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions" 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: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 11:07:45 -0000 --000000000000f2afa70601eeab92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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-request@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-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: 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 > To: Daniel Lipshitz > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default > Message-ID: > 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 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 -------------- > 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 > To: Hugo L , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". > (ashneverdawn) > Message-ID: > < > CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w@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-request@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-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". (rot13maxi) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000 > >> From: rot13maxi > >> To: L?o Haf , "vjudeu@gazeta.pl" > >> > >> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > >> > >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". > >> Message-ID: > >> > >> > >> 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 < 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, vjudeu@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 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 ? 07:30, vjudeu@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 > ****************************************** > --000000000000f2afa70601eeab92 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too = high, Ordinals aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theor= etical limit of the amount of storage that
> can be added per block i= sn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used
> to produce Or= dinals or something else)


True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficientl= y limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'.=C2=A0

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 jus= t assume that you don't want to. And currently the entire blockchain is= roughly 500GB.=C2=A0

No= w that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at now. H= owever, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB hard drive fo= r less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you run out of space. = That's less than $0.02 per day.=C2=A0

=
That is a worst case scenario.
Consider that since cost of hardware drops over ti= me, it will become less of a burden over time.

<= /div>
Also, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how= much of that actually needs to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforem= entioned topic announcing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation = that uses utreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the ful= l UTXO set. Other initiatives exist as well.=C2=A0
<= br>
There is definitely a lot of optimization potent= ial for drastically reducing how much space is actually needed by individua= l nodes.



On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM , <bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions = to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-dev@lists= .linuxfoundation.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-d= ev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 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:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd)
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (Keagan McClelland)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Message-ID: <ZMmxJoL1ZH4//8Fg@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"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 merchant= s
> directly=C2=A0 - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and process a > significant amount of BTC they are a well known and active in the spac= e -
> as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max the CEO of Coinsp= aid
> confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing there cluster addr= esses
> to validate there deposit flows see here again -
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-Decemb= er/021239.html
> - if this is not sufficient then please email support@co= inspaid.com and ask
> to be connected to Max or someone from the team who can confirm Conspa= id is
> clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to do a call, I can c= heck
> 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? I= f
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 sh= ould
we believe you?

> I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and they offered to emai= l 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 r= elies on
unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would meet GAP600's = risk
criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily do test transactio= ns
if you told us what we can actually test. If your service actually works, t= hen
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 accou= nts 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<= br> > 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<= br> > the mining pools who can confirm they have adopted FULL RBF ?

I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that they and the= ir
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 nee= d 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-rb= f.
Why don't you already have this data?

--
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/piperma= il/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700
From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com= >
To: Hugo L <ashneverdawn@gmail.com>,=C2=A0 Bitcoin= Protocol Discussion
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (ashneverdawn)
Message-ID:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w@mail.= gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"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<= br> 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.<= br> We may very well discover that if we price UTXOs in a way that reflect the<= br> resource costs that usage of inscriptions would vanish. The trouble though<= br> 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 pri= vacy
> and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not even able= to
> distinguish different types of transactions from one another in the fi= rst
> place.
>
> We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should go to t= he
> 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<= br> > they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage consu= med). 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 sto= rage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they a= re used
> to produce Ordinals or something else)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , <
> bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinf= o/bitcoin-dev
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' = to
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specifi= c
>> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 1. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (rot13= maxi)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000
>> From: rot13maxi <rot13maxi@protonmail.com&= gt;
>> To: L?o Haf <leohaf@orangepill.ovh>, "vjudeu@g= azeta.pl"
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<vjudeu@gazeta.pl= >
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".=
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <RIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QF= Zr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=3D@
>> protonmail.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"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 standard= ization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>>
>> One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf discussion i= s 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 m= eans you
>> would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated relay p= olicy to
>> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being incl= uded in
>> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and abl= e to send
>> non-standard transactions to miners out of band (
>> https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc= 19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae),
>> so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the ne= w 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 inscrip= tion in
>> the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?, maybe t= hey 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%
>>=C2=A0 + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people= see this,
>> they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and busin= esses 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 ru= n by a
>> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for th= e
>> anti-inscription people.
>>
>> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of to= day is
>> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive th= an
>> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive or= because
>> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on Bi= tcoin
>> becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural cou= rse of
>> collectibles.
>>
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote abou= t spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://= bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.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.or= g](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at
>> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D)> wrote:
>>
>> > ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless b= ut in this
>> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be circumven= ted by
>> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount,<= br> >> 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 standard= ization
>> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>> >
>> > As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a st= rength
>> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being acti= vated by
>> default, the patch will become more and more effective as the node= s update.
>> >
>> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a so= lution
>> because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is obvio= usly a
>> big problem.
>> >
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote abou= t spam
>> here is the link:
>> https://= bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1617#msg1617
>> >
>> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vjudeu@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-Fe= bruary/021464.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believ= e that
>> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regula= r
>> transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That mea= ns, even
>> if developers would create some official version with that option,= then
>> some people would not follow them, or even block Ordinals-filterin= g nodes,
>> exactly as described in the linked thread:
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-Fe= bruary/021487.html
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network t= olerates this
>> kind of behavior
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can f= ind images,
>> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before Ordinal= s. 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 an= d UTXO set
>> growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinal= s
>> 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 n= odes,
>> 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 7746= 28 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.<= br> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mini= ng pools
>> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.
>> >
>> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people us= e the default
>> configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to al= low free
>> transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with disablin= g dust
>> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does anythi= ng
>> unusual.
>> >
>> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address al= l cases. You
>> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE O= P_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 Fe= bruary or
>> March, but not now.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user leohaf@orangepill.ovh wro= te:
>> >
>> >>> I understand your point of view. However, inscription= represent by
>> far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed themselv= es in the
>> witness with a fee reduction.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field w= hich could
>> also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the standa= rdization
>> rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented similar = abuses.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to mor= e serious
>> issues, not taking action against these inscription could be inter= preted by
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could encoura= ge more
>> similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive tha= t the
>> Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >> I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve imp= lementing 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.<= br> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >>>> Le 26 juil. 2023 ? 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta.= pl a ?crit :
>> >
>> >>>> and I would like to understand why this problem h= as 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 w= ould be
>> backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and people= will
>> call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people will cal= l 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 differe= nt problem, that
>> was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the probl= em of
>> forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-grow= ing UTXO
>> set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to addre= ss just that, but
>> this code is not yet completed.
>> >
>> >>>> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject i= nscriptions in the
>> mempool of a node.
>> >
>> >>> Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You w= ill block one
>> inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are pr= esent
>> even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That me= ans, 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 T= okens, concepts
>> that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
>> >
>> >>> The community also rejected things like sidechains, a= nd they are
>> still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some uns= toppable
>> concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. Wha= t
>> inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They bel= ieve
>> 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 mi= ners and
>> nodes).
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/b= itcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g
>> 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://lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/b= itcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.li= nuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


------------------------------

End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 3
******************************************
--000000000000f2afa70601eeab92--