Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4842C0032 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B49F4BEFB for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:26:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9B49F4BEFB X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 pZ7EXjIDQRS6 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:26:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 634 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:26:37 UTC DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 1A2864A1C0 Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2864A1C0 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.sonic.net (b.webmail.sonic.net [184.23.169.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPA id 3A3AFwI6008116; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 03:15:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:15:58 -0700 From: Brad Morrison To: Melvin Carvalho , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46e412585ce8143727c40c66edae83e0@sonic.net> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.17 X-Sonic-Auth: lDyFdqSDEWicdJbqPKmRKk9vA7bEUYHTPGSjQg9HDfvTTYdjBLA/WS+IrcFxSdq4VyDMVnR8GeBl9rTtZlIAftHPehGoj1WBqPigQi1kM/I= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_24f55b24e57516fbc23cfdcc955412e6" X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaZr6iVC7saPOqOVHTZDDlCO9S8BQgj5b1DlOWMB7ybl+Aj+d4x0Jz9TbjOSsC09q/LO+qB3pxgHHaVYvwfGZR77rHmxMc1eFk= X-Sonic-ID: C;EkV/+zF67hG4t50CP63e0g== M;4ISK+zF67hG4t50CP63e0g== X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -0.0/5.0 by cerberusd X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:45:37 +0000 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 10:26:41 -0000 --=_24f55b24e57516fbc23cfdcc955412e6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 mb. 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. Thank you, Brad On 2023-05-08 09:37, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev 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 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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, 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 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 - should similar action be taken now, in the form 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 scripts) which has allowed these 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 Taproot 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 we need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind 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=195.msg1617#msg1617 > > Gavin: That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to 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/ [1] >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Links: ------ [1] https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp --=_24f55b24e57516fbc23cfdcc955412e6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

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 c= urrent memory usage is 795 mb of 300 mb.

We could compare the bitcoin networks' ability to process transactions t= o 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 ex= port 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.

Thank you,

Brad

 


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

 

po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odes&iacut= e;latel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsa= l:
Hi guys,
 
I think ever= yone 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 volu= me, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what is caus= ing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since December 2= 017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only with 1-= 5sat/vbyte.
 
Such justifi= ably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how its creator de= scribed them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin n= etwork as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended to be used as= =2E
 
If the volum= e does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an action? The = bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and users. Consider= ing that miners are largely the entities at fault for allowing the system t= o be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being disrupt= ed right now. Although this community has a strong history of not putting i= ts fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary - an example being during = the block size wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken now, in the= form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curt= ail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for Taproot= scripts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?
 
An alternati= ve would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and introduce a = run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot transactions. T= his 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 we need to find a solution f= or this that fits everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to h= appen, which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a responsib= ility to do something to ensure that this kind of congestion can never happ= en again using Taproot.
 
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:
 
htt= ps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D195.msg1617#msg1617

Gavin: That's a cool feature until it gets= popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network = with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all= their friends...
Satoshi: That's one of the reasons for transaction f= ees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.
 
High fees could be viewed as disruptive to the n= etwork, but less disruptive than regular large reorgs, or a network split.<= /div>
 
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 m= ore challenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some decentra= lization.
 
 
-Ali
 
---
 
 
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing l= ist
bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

= _______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing l= ist
bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--=_24f55b24e57516fbc23cfdcc955412e6--