Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)
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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> bitcoin-dev-ow...@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 + >> From: rot13maxi >> To: L?o Haf , "vju...@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 >> inscrib
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial experience and likewise your conclusions are false. I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics. As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440 something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of adoption. Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF. Daniel Lipshitz GAP600| www.gap600.com Phone: +44 113 4900 117 Skype: daniellipshitz123 Twitter: @daniellipshitz On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 AM Peter Todd wrote: > 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 supp...@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 > ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan McClelland)
About price space in the UTXO set: I am highly concerned with that proposal. The reason is this could restrict users to do proper UTXO management and lead to doxing and privacy issues. Now there are few costs associated to having lots of UTXOs, mainly fees associated with spending low-valued UTXOs. > 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 Einherjar - E7ED 7E35 F072 CA83 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. publickey - realeinherjar@proton.me - 0xBF60A699.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions"
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+14...@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 rath
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
For clarity purposes. 1. Our research is based on monitoring main net transactions and network activity - as too is our risk engine. We do not engage in specific hashing pool assessments or research. 2. It is not easily possible or comfortable to engage with our clients to offer up their client names and applications - the competition is fierce and like other industries it is not an acceptable approach to ask. 3. The information offered by Coinpaid and posted on this list, provides root addresses which using tools like Chainanlysis, or similar service providers can confirm these addresses are associated with Coinspaid. This can validate a significant amount of our traffic. 4. Based on the information provided it will be very possible to reach out to Max at Coinpaid - and will be able to confirm GAP600 use with Coinspaid. This is in addition to me posting an email from Max back in Dec 2022 to this list confirming all of this information. 5. It is more than likely that Changelly has not implemented our service across all irts offerings, a large section of their business is servicing partners. Daniel Lipshitz GAP600| www.gap600.com Phone: +44 113 4900 117 Skype: daniellipshitz123 Twitter: @daniellipshitz On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:38 PM Daniel Lipshitz wrote: > Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I > should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial > experience and likewise your conclusions are false. > > I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite > our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major > client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics. > > As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440 > something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of adoption. > Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing > pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF. > > > Daniel Lipshitz > GAP600| www.gap600.com > Phone: +44 113 4900 117 > Skype: daniellipshitz123 > Twitter: @daniellipshitz > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 AM Peter Todd wrote: > >> 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 supp...@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
