📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08
🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin Core should have extended spam filters to Taproot transactions. A bugfix can address this issue, and censorship at the node level is an alternative.
📝 Original message:Action should have been taken months ago. Spam filtration has been a
standard part of Bitcoin Core since day 1. It's a mistake that the
existing filters weren't extended to Taproot transactions. We can
address that, or try a more narrow approach like OP_RETURN (ie, what
"Ordisrespector" does). Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't really even
need to wait for a major release.
(We already have pruning. It's not an alternative to spam filtering.)
Luke
On 5/7/23 13:22, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
>
> -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/20230508/6fa702e3/attachment.html>;
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 23:21:32
in reply to nevent1q…8l8p
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 23:21:32Event JSON
{
"id": "d9d75bd50c81c1033cd51ae4206bb5bf89db2dfc4401f1d102e5c12a26b2b3d0",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686180092,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99c4bf84b18ff56e33caa2ea8f0dff269c71fbc07db2947c8f69f4bfab247070",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a55ffbd204af3da3fffdd93a80d53ae29702899d7c5c078897ad01479cfb0cbf",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Bitcoin Core should have extended spam filters to Taproot transactions. A bugfix can address this issue, and censorship at the node level is an alternative.\n📝 Original message:Action should have been taken months ago. Spam filtration has been a \nstandard part of Bitcoin Core since day 1. It's a mistake that the \nexisting filters weren't extended to Taproot transactions. We can \naddress that, or try a more narrow approach like OP_RETURN (ie, what \n\"Ordisrespector\" does). Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't really even \nneed to wait for a major release.\n\n(We already have pruning. It's not an alternative to spam filtering.)\n\nLuke\n\n\nOn 5/7/23 13:22, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote:\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 \n\u003e out and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has \n\u003e arguable not been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March \n\u003e 2021 congestion because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.\n\u003e\n\u003e Such justifiably worthless (\"worthless\" is not even my word - that's \n\u003e how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and \n\u003e normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, \n\u003e as it was intended to be used as.\n\u003e\n\u003e If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we \n\u003e take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, \n\u003e miners, and users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at \n\u003e fault for allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of \n\u003e Bitcoin transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this \n\u003e community has a strong history of not putting its fingers into pies \n\u003e unless absolutely necessary - an example being during the block size \n\u003e wars and Segwit - should similar action be taken now, in the form of \n\u003e i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail \n\u003e the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for \n\u003e Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?\n\u003e\n\u003e An alternative would be to enforce this \"censorship\" at the node level \n\u003e and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard \n\u003e Taproot transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit \n\u003e the road 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 \n\u003e we need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common \n\u003e ground. We indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't \n\u003e possible before. So we also have a responsibility to do something to \n\u003e ensure that this kind of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.\n\u003e\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 _______________________________________________\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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/6fa702e3/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "eb155a19141d7159451aafb5cacd4a8206423cc1d5d159ea3dd9cc1960e4a737761277b94ca77fd3af0aa754d2ca35f2ac916c9e4294ddab2c51ce38bde79ca1"
}