📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin mempool is congested due to high volume of BRC-20 tokens, causing real transactions to be priced out. Discussions on potential solutions and actions to prevent future congestion.
📝 Original message:po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal:
> Hi guys,
>
> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin
> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20
> having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out
> and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not
> been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion
> because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.
>
> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's how
> its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of
> the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended
> to be used as.
>
> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an
> action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and
> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for
> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin
> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a
> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely
> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should
> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into
> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which
> defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these
> unintended consequences?
>
> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level and
> introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot
> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road
> until minimum next release.
>
> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this,
> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we
> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We
> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before.
> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind
> of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.
>
This is a nuanced and sensitive topic that has been discussed previously,
as far back as 2010, in a conversation between Gavin and Satoshi:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
Gavin: That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it
would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to
transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
Satoshi: That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other
things we can do if necessary.
High fees could be viewed as disruptive to the network, but less disruptive
than regular large reorgs, or a network split.
It might be beneficial to brainstorm the "other things we can do if
necessary".
A simple observation is that increasing the block size could make it more
challenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some
decentralization.
> -Ali
>
> ---
>
> [1]:
> https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/
> <https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp>;
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at 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/20230508/2b4d1b46/attachment-0001.html>;
Melvin Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uv…saxrt
2023-06-07 23:21:31
in reply to nevent1q…8s6q
Author Public Key
npub1uvtfvcegcn9kds68r8he57emc480vqtx8t22kpsctxgjxae44gvsksaxrtPublished at
2023-06-07 23:21:31Event JSON
{
"id": "a55ffbd204af3da3fffdd93a80d53ae29702899d7c5c078897ad01479cfb0cbf",
"pubkey": "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19",
"created_at": 1686180091,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99c4bf84b18ff56e33caa2ea8f0dff269c71fbc07db2947c8f69f4bfab247070",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bbbc08d3bbcbde797cc9c8902cd4b09a605dffabf84e978a5257b1322632cf4e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin mempool is congested due to high volume of BRC-20 tokens, causing real transactions to be priced out. Discussions on potential solutions and actions to prevent future congestion.\n📝 Original message:po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e napsal:\n\n\u003e Hi guys,\n\u003e\n\u003e I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin\n\u003e mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20\n\u003e having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out\n\u003e and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not\n\u003e been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion\n\u003e because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.\n\u003e\n\u003e Such justifiably worthless (\"worthless\" is not even my word - that's how\n\u003e its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of\n\u003e the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended\n\u003e to be used as.\n\u003e\n\u003e If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take an\n\u003e action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and\n\u003e users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for\n\u003e allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin\n\u003e transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a\n\u003e strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely\n\u003e necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should\n\u003e similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into\n\u003e the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which\n\u003e defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these\n\u003e unintended consequences?\n\u003e\n\u003e An alternative would be to enforce this \"censorship\" at the node level and\n\u003e introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot\n\u003e transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road\n\u003e until minimum next release.\n\u003e\n\u003e I know that some people will have their criticisms about this,\n\u003e absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we\n\u003e need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We\n\u003e indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before.\n\u003e So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind\n\u003e of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.\n\u003e\n\nThis is a nuanced and sensitive topic that has been discussed previously,\nas far back as 2010, in a conversation between Gavin and Satoshi:\n\nhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617\n\nGavin: That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it\nwould be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to\ntransfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...\nSatoshi: That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other\nthings we can do if necessary.\n\nHigh fees could be viewed as disruptive to the network, but less disruptive\nthan regular large reorgs, or a network split.\n\nIt might be beneficial to brainstorm the \"other things we can do if\nnecessary\".\n\nA simple observation is that increasing the block size could make it more\nchallenging to spam, though it may come at the expense of some\ndecentralization.\n\n\n\u003e -Ali\n\u003e\n\u003e ---\n\u003e\n\u003e [1]:\n\u003e https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/\n\u003e \u003chttps://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/?outputType=amp\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/2b4d1b46/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "c4c3aad6a4ca26fa86c368a0c806ce090f4c4c38d23ac8615dfb38d0e0daf568e5ca125b0866963a378d3137ec28e72496ddd4afb7cfd036881c659094fdb446"
}