1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BB6C0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22386414DB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:39 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 22386414DB
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=IZIVGTh7
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id NeegtFWqMQdm
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 366 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org;
Wed, 02 Aug 2023 15:52:35 UTC
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 0B13B41486
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B13B41486
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.86.103] (99-39-46-195.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net
[99.39.46.195]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E0C838AF85E;
Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:46:26 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1690991188; bh=T65yjGbM/xham84PQXTOrWb+Uzigt+9b86Q2nmw6/z8=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To;
b=IZIVGTh7Thyvte0GQbDrg4A7Bh+TtviMnr9+x5rnenoH7SNhJK8rIVTToCRfsSWPQ
BnH9Zo48DhCQrnsyZEqzv15SV8uM73n/wJxRDT0w0ISYtz96wOG+zPbJDPI+hG+Wcm
P0ehTPyeh50d8vOCDSpLGm4NiG3jcXjlQGsV0kII=
X-Hashcash: 1:23:230802:gamedevalice256@gmail.com::/zi6XONsmVwH1dXB:h8k3
X-Hashcash: 1:23:230802:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::r4AHh2J1ELu4/dBs:Lf9
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y"
Message-ID: <f0c26b59-f75a-8831-fa9e-51ef4a129d67@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:46:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.13.0
To: GamedevAlice <gamedevalice256@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAJCwDN-CFyyJhyp_5YTMtSNTN41zp5uJ1qa8vdmVqC2YCW8A6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJCwDN-CFyyJhyp_5YTMtSNTN41zp5uJ1qa8vdmVqC2YCW8A6Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 14:11:54 +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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 15:52:39 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes. Please,
before participating in discussions of this topic, at least get a basic
understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few years ago to get you
started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s
Luke
On 8/2/23 07:07, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > 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 <pete@petertodd.org>
> To: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@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//8Fg@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
> 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 <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.mcclelland@gmail.com>
> To: Hugo L <ashneverdawn@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
> (ashneverdawn)
> Message-ID:
>
> <CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w@mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L%2B14d3w@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 <rot13maxi@protonmail.com>
> >> To: L?o Haf <leohaf@orangepill.ovh>, "vjudeu@gazeta.pl"
> >> <vjudeu@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, 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
> ******************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes.
Please, before participating in discussions of this topic, at
least get a basic understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few
years ago to get you started:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s</a></p>
<p>Luke</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/2/23 07:07, GamedevAlice via
bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJCwDN-CFyyJhyp_5YTMtSNTN41zp5uJ1qa8vdmVqC2YCW8A6Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high,
Ordinals aren't the<br>
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the
amount of storage that<br>
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited.
(Whether they are used<br>
> to produce Ordinals or something else)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact
sufficiently limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">That is a worst case scenario.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Consider that since cost of hardware drops over
time, it will become less of a burden over time.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">There is definitely a lot of optimization
potential for drastically reducing how much space is actually
needed by individual nodes.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40
AM , <<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send
bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to<br>
<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
to<br>
<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter
Todd)<br>
2. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)<br>
(Keagan McClelland)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +0000<br>
From: Peter Todd <<a href="mailto:pete@petertodd.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pete@petertodd.org</a>><br>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <<a href="mailto:daniel@gap600.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">daniel@gap600.com</a>><br>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
<<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by
default<br>
Message-ID: <ZMmxJoL1ZH4//<a
href="mailto:8Fg@petertodd.org" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">8Fg@petertodd.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:27:24AM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz
wrote:<br>
> Your research is not thorough and reaches an
incorrect conclusion.<br>
> <br>
> As stated many times - we service payment processors
and some merchants<br>
> directly - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and
process a<br>
> significant amount of BTC they are a well known and
active in the space -<br>
> as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max
the CEO of Coinspaid<br>
> confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing
there cluster addresses<br>
> to validate there deposit flows see here again -<br>
> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html</a><br>
> - if this is not sufficient then please email <a
href="mailto:support@coinspaid.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">support@coinspaid.com</a>
and ask<br>
> to be connected to Max or someone from the team who
can confirm Conspaid is<br>
> clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to
do a call, I can check<br>
> again now and see if this is still the case and
connect you.<br>
> <br>
> That on its own is enough of a sample to validate our
statistics.<br>
<br>
Why don't you just give me an example of some merchants
using Coinspaid, and<br>
another example using Coinpayments, who rely on
unconfirmed transactions? If<br>
those merchants actually exist it should be very easy to
give me some names of<br>
them.<br>
<br>
Without actual concrete examples for everyone to see for
themselves, why should<br>
we believe you?<br>
<br>
> I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and
they offered to email pro<br>
> @ <a href="http://changelly.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">changelly.com</a> and they will
be able to confirm GAP600 as a service<br>
<br>
Emailed; waiting on a reply.<br>
<br>
> provider. Also please send me the 1 trx hash you
tested and I can see if it<br>
> was queried to our system and if so offer some info
as to why it wasnt<br>
> approved. Also if you can elaborate how you
integrated with Changelly - I<br>
> can check with them if that area is not integrated
with GAP600.<br>
<br>
Why don't you just tell me exactly what service Changelly
offers that relies on<br>
unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would
meet GAP600's risk<br>
criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily
do test transactions<br>
if you told us what we can actually test. If your service
actually works, then<br>
you can safely provide that information.<br>
<br>
I'm not going to give you any exact tx hashes of
transactions I've already<br>
done, as I don't want to cause any problems for the owners
of the accounts I<br>
borrowed for testing. Given your lack of honesty so far I
have every reason to<br>
believe they might be retalliated against in some way.<br>
<br>
> As the architect of such a major change to the status
of 0-conf<br>
> transactions I would think you would welcome the
opportunity to speak to<br>
> business and users who actual activities will be
impacted by full RBF<br>
> becoming dominant.<br>
<br>
Funny how you say this, without actually giving any
concrete examples of<br>
businesses that will be affected. Who exactly are these
businesses? Payment<br>
processors obviously don't count.<br>
<br>
> 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 ?<br>
<br>
I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that
they and their<br>
employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously
I'm not going to<br>
provide you with any private contact information I have.
There's no need to<br>
expose them to further harassment.<br>
<br>
If you actually offered an unconfirmed transaction
guarantee service, with real<br>
customers getting an actual benefit, you'd be doing test
transactions<br>
frequently and would already have a very good idea of what
pools do full-rbf.<br>
Why don't you already have this data?<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="https://petertodd.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://petertodd.org</a>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href="http://petertodd.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">petertodd.org</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 833 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a
href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/7f826021/attachment-0001.sig</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 22:58:53 -0700<br>
From: Keagan McClelland <<a
href="mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Hugo L <<a href="mailto:ashneverdawn@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ashneverdawn@gmail.com</a>>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
<<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".<br>
(ashneverdawn)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a
href="mailto:CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L%2B14d3w@mail.gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">CALeFGL2Z3q90Esnu0qV0mqpHZaCnOV-5aks2TKGOjY4L+14d3w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
There is an open question as to whether or not we should
figure out a way<br>
to price space in the UTXO set. I think it is fair to say
that given the<br>
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<br>
set must be maintained by all nodes including pruned
nodes, whereas main<br>
block and witness data do not have the same type of
indefinite footprint,<br>
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"<br>
with Bitcoin, a proposition that would likely be offensive
to a significant<br>
portion of the Bitcoin user base.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Keags<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:55?AM Hugo L via bitcoin-dev
<<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which
types of transactions<br>
> should be allowed or not on the network, in fact,
when it comes to privacy<br>
> and censorship resistance, it would be better if we
were not even able to<br>
> distinguish different types of transactions from one
another in the first<br>
> place.<br>
><br>
> We have limited resources on the blockchain and so
they should go to the<br>
> highest bidder. This is already how the network
functions and how it<br>
> ensures it's security.<br>
><br>
> Rather than thinking about this as "spam", I think
it's useful to<br>
> objectively think about it in terms of value to the
marketplace (fees<br>
> they're willing to pay) against cost to the network
(storage consumed). It<br>
> comes down to supply and demand.<br>
><br>
> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high,
Ordinals aren't the<br>
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the
amount of storage that<br>
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited.
(Whether they are used<br>
> to produce Ordinals or something else)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , <<br>
> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to<br>
>> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
Web, visit<br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to<br>
>> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
>> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so
it is more specific<br>
>> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Today's Topics:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions".
(rot13maxi)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Message: 1<br>
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000<br>
>> From: rot13maxi <<a
href="mailto:rot13maxi@protonmail.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">rot13maxi@protonmail.com</a>><br>
>> To: L?o Haf <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:leohaf@orangepill.ovh"><leohaf@orangepill.ovh></a>, "<a
href="mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a>"<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a>><br>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
>> <<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about
"Inscriptions".<br>
>> Message-ID:<br>
>><br>
>>
<RIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QFZr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=@<br>
>> <a href="http://protonmail.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">protonmail.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
>><br>
>> Hello,<br>
>><br>
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by
bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because<br>
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and
make them a standardization<br>
>> rule than to create new types of spam
transactions.<br>
>><br>
>> One of the things discussed during the
mempoolfullrbf discussion is that<br>
>> a small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class
of transaction is enough<br>
>> for that class of transaction to consistently
reach miners. That means you<br>
>> would need to get nearly the entire network to
run updated relay policy to<br>
>> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching
miners and being included in<br>
>> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they
are willing and able to send<br>
>> non-standard transactions to miners out of band (<br>
>> <a
href="https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae</a>),<br>
>> so even if you managed to get enough of the
network running the new rule to<br>
>> prevent propagation to miners, those users can
just go out of band. Or,<br>
>> they can simply change the script that is used to
embed an inscription in<br>
>> the transaction witness. For example, instead of
0 OP_IF?, maybe they do 0<br>
>> OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription
people detect this, they<br>
>> have to update the rule and wait for 90%<br>
>> + of the network to upgrade. When the
pro-inscription people see this,<br>
>> they only have to convince other inscription
enthusiasts and businesses to<br>
>> update.<br>
>><br>
>> The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many
more participants (most<br>
>> of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription
update has to be run by a<br>
>> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a
losing battle for the<br>
>> anti-inscription people.<br>
>><br>
>> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best
answer we know of today is<br>
>> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be
more expensive than<br>
>> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its
too expensive or because<br>
>> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The
former relies on Bitcoin<br>
>> becoming more useful to more people, the latter
is the natural course of<br>
>> collectibles.<br>
>><br>
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi
himself who wrote about spam<br>
>> here is the link:<br>
>> <a
href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617</a><br>
>><br>
>> Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Rijndael<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via
bitcoin-dev <[<br>
>> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>](mailto:<a
href="mailto:On" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">On</a> Sun, Jul 30, 2023
at<br>
>> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a
href=)> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > ?According to you, the rules of
standardization are useless but in this<br>
>> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit
can be circumvented by<br>
>> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for
maxancestorcount,<br>
>> minrelayfee or even the dust limit.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > This cat and mouse game can be won by
bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because<br>
>> it is easier to detect these transactions and
make them a standardization<br>
>> rule than to create new types of spam
transactions.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > As for the default policy, it can be a
weakness but also a strength<br>
>> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin
Core by being activated by<br>
>> default, the patch will become more and more
effective as the nodes update.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit
node, it is not a solution<br>
>> because this type of node cannot initiate new
ones, which is obviously a<br>
>> big problem.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi
himself who wrote about spam<br>
>> here is the link:<br>
>> <a
href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, <a
href="mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a> a
?crit :<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> ?<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> not taking action against these
inscription could be interpreted by<br>
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Note that some people, even on this
mailing list, do not consider<br>
>> Ordinals as spam:<br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> See? It was discussed when it started.
Some people believe that<br>
>> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead
to blocking regular<br>
>> transactions in the future, just based on other
criteria. That means, even<br>
>> if developers would create some official version
with that option, then<br>
>> some people would not follow them, or even block
Ordinals-filtering nodes,<br>
>> exactly as described in the linked thread:<br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> as spammers might perceive that the
Bitcoin network tolerates this<br>
>> kind of behavior<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> But it is true, you have the whole
pages, where you can find images,<br>
>> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain
long before Ordinals. The<br>
>> whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3
multisig outputs, see<br>
>> transaction<br>
>>
54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713.
You have<br>
>> the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin
by using part of the<br>
>> Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> That means, as long as you won't solve
IBD problem and UTXO set<br>
>> growing problem, you will go nowhere, because if
you block Ordinals<br>
>> specifically, people won't learn "this is bad,
don't do that", they could<br>
>> read it as "use the old way instead", as long as
you won't block all<br>
>> possible ways. And doing that, requires for
example creating new nodes,<br>
>> without synchronizing non-consensus data, like it
could be done in "assume<br>
>> UTXO" model.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Also note that as long as people use
Taproot to upload a lot of data,<br>
>> you can still turn off the witness, and become a
pre-Segwit node. But if<br>
>> you block those ways, then people will push data
into legacy parts, and<br>
>> then you will need more code to strip it
correctly. The block 774628 maybe<br>
>> contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective
of Segwit node, but the<br>
>> legacy part is actually very small, so by turning
witness off, you can<br>
>> strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> I want to emphasize that my proposal
does not involve implementing a<br>
>> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am
asking is simply to<br>
>> consider adding a standardization option. This
option would allow the<br>
>> community to freely decide whether it should be
activated or not.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will
be pushed by mining pools<br>
>> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as
most people use the default<br>
>> configuration. For example, people can configure
their nodes to allow free<br>
>> transactions, without recompiling anything. The
same with disabling dust<br>
>> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild
that does anything<br>
>> unusual.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr
does not address all cases. You<br>
>> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE
OP_IF" used by Ordinals,<br>
>> and easily bypass those restrictions. This will
be just a cat and mouse<br>
>> game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they
will be forced to. The<br>
>> Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could
be good for February or<br>
>> March, but not now.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:leohaf@orangepill.ovh">leohaf@orangepill.ovh</a> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> I understand your point of view.
However, inscription represent by<br>
>> far the largest spam attack due to their ability
to embed themselves in the<br>
>> witness with a fee reduction.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Unlike other methods, such as using the
op_return field which could<br>
>> also be used to spam the chain, the associated
fees and the standardization<br>
>> rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far
prevented similar abuses.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Although attempting to stop inscription
could lead to more serious<br>
>> issues, not taking action against these
inscription could be interpreted by<br>
>> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.
This could encourage more<br>
>> similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers
might perceive that the<br>
>> Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >> I want to emphasize that my proposal
does not involve implementing a<br>
>> soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am
asking is simply to<br>
>> consider adding a standardization option. This
option would allow the<br>
>> community to freely decide whether it should be
activated or not.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> >>>> Le 26 juil. 2023 ? 07:30, <a
href="mailto:vjudeu@gazeta.pl" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">vjudeu@gazeta.pl</a> a
?crit :<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>>> and I would like to understand
why this problem has not been<br>
>> addressed more seriously<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> Because if nobody has any good
solution, then status quo is<br>
>> preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the
default state of the<br>
>> network would be "just do nothing", and every
solution would be<br>
>> backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old
coins, and people will<br>
>> call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people
will call it "BSV". Leave<br>
>> everything untouched, and the network will split
into N parts, and then you<br>
>> pick the strongest chain to decide, what should
be done.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>>> However, when it comes to
inscriptions, there are no available<br>
>> options except for a patch produced by Luke
Dashjr.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> Because the real solution should
address some different problem, that<br>
>> was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal
with it: the problem of<br>
>> forever-growing initial blockchain download time,
and forever-growing UTXO<br>
>> set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying
to address just that, but<br>
>> this code is not yet completed.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>>> So, I wonder why there are no
options to reject inscriptions in the<br>
>> mempool of a node.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> Because it will lead you to never
ending chase. You will block one<br>
>> inscriptions, and different ones will be created.
Now, they are present<br>
>> even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or
even Segwit. That means, if<br>
>> you try to kill them, then they will be replaced
by N regular<br>
>> indistinguishable transactions, and then you will
go back to those more<br>
>> serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and
UTXO size.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>>> Inscriptions are primarily used
to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts<br>
>> that the Bitcoin community has consistently
rejected.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >>> The community also rejected things
like sidechains, and they are<br>
>> still present, just in a more centralized form.
There are some unstoppable<br>
>> concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop
a soft-fork. What<br>
>> inscription creators did, is just non-enforced
soft-fork. They believe<br>
>> their rules are followed to the letter, but this
is not the case, as you<br>
>> can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will
be some invalid Ordinals<br>
>> transaction (because their additional rules are
not enforced by miners and<br>
>> nodes).<br>
>> -------------- next part --------------<br>
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
>> URL: <<br>
>> <a
href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 98, Issue 20<br>
>> *******************************************<br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a
href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/3e3a2496/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 3<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------fFJ3YYfZ7M293LhHboQBn10Y--
|
