Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:09:31 +0000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <0100017f0eab2640-c7be81bb-c1c5-4150-a65a-cadd78a8258f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <CAPfvXfKrnju1fzxOKs3Fx00NOPWHjedF7e4xMSGs8buwc0O2kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALZpt+FwZTXEYYiJ=1XTXbDVECW41e9rNq8rn8AYr6m3yLAkPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPfvXfJN9zeJDYka8BycU102xGdwQ2O9=Khgjag-eYLmXRdsdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALZpt+G0uXL04onty2N++6tWeX7Y=5KWw3x8-A0MvyUgZR-4Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaZ=Qx_phzjFJXzQc0ePWfuJmGKsPrsvj9X1pBTBrRgWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoKnhyzJ=6W-=hxpmCyjiPyYMuS=eKjLN+bu5cuLRQ42nxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPfvXfJnDajpxjpnhXNZiBTLqBmNEmj5CdFNx8UxEE4R1ydepA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5xwhjYCrRU0+kJG0Pex2ga3rFxFQNyn0dX5+8io0hbEUSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="t26uudckv2vwsfdz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhjYCrRU0+kJG0Pex2ga3rFxFQNyn0dX5+8io0hbEUSjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.n0oE+7mPCT3oYHRtIkpRsZClsaxS9eYOjymWOETvbbI=:AmazonSES
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Sponsor transaction engineering,
 was Re:  Thoughts on fee bumping
Precedence: list


--t26uudckv2vwsfdz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:37:43PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are technical reasons for sponsors to not be monotone.
> Mostly that it requires the maintenance of an additional permanent
> TX-Index

Alternatively, you could allow a miner to include a sponsor transaction
in a later block than the sponsored transaction by providing an (SPV)
merkle inclusion proof that the sponsored transaction was a part of a
previous block on the same chain.[1]

This does raise the vbyte cost of including sponsor and sponsored
transactions in different blocks compared to including them both in the
same block, but I wonder if it mitigates the validity concern raised by
Suhas Daftuar in the previous sponsor transaction thread.

-Dave

[1] Bitcoin Core stores the complete headers chain, so it already has
the information necessary to validate such a proof (and the
`verifytxoutproof` RPC already does this).  Utreexo-style nodes might
not store old headers to save space, but I presume they could store a
merkle-like commitment to all headers they previously validated and then
have utreexo proofs include the necessary headers and intermediate
hashes necessary to validate subsequent-block sponsor transactions.

--t26uudckv2vwsfdz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=NZQL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--t26uudckv2vwsfdz--