📅 Original date posted:2023-05-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: Rejecting transactions with fees higher than outputs may prevent reasonable transfers. Off-network payments could be penalized to maintain on-chain transactions.
📝 Original message:> And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value
Such a transfer can only be reasonable when off-chain value is attached
to the coins. A rule like this is the embodiment of the philosophy that
the Bitcoin network is for onchain-economic transactions.
Parties could get around the rule by paying miners off-network, and that
would be an appropriate penalty for using non-onchain-economic transactions.
On 5/8/23 10:13, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is
> higher than the sum of the outputs
>
> And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted
> Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I *want* to close my
> Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an
> onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you
> want to stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as
> well as requiring a consensus rule change.
>
> -- Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com <http://protonmail.com/>;
> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is
>> higher than the sum of the outputs
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230509/54e03016/attachment.html>;
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 23:21:30
in reply to nevent1q…d7ay
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 23:21:30Event JSON
{
"id": "bbbc08d3bbcbde797cc9c8902cd4b09a605dffabf84e978a5257b1322632cf4e",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686180090,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99c4bf84b18ff56e33caa2ea8f0dff269c71fbc07db2947c8f69f4bfab247070",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee98ccbd6f2c9cc27d9322eb882d70e6553767cb77d25255ac29d7ea35df95d9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-09\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Rejecting transactions with fees higher than outputs may prevent reasonable transfers. Off-network payments could be penalized to maintain on-chain transactions.\n📝 Original message:\u003e And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value\n\n\nSuch a transfer can only be reasonable when off-chain value is attached \nto the coins. A rule like this is the embodiment of the philosophy that \nthe Bitcoin network is for onchain-economic transactions.\n\nParties could get around the rule by paying miners off-network, and that \nwould be an appropriate penalty for using non-onchain-economic transactions.\n\n\n\nOn 5/8/23 10:13, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is \n\u003e higher than the sum of the outputs\n\u003e\n\u003e And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted \n\u003e Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I *want* to close my \n\u003e Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an \n\u003e onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you \n\u003e want to stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as \n\u003e well as requiring a consensus rule change.\n\u003e\n\u003e -- Michael Folkson\n\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com \u003chttp://protonmail.com/\u003e\n\u003e GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F\n\u003e Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin\n\u003e\n\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is \n\u003e\u003e higher than the sum of the outputs\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi guys,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects\n\u003e\u003e such as BRC-20 having such a high volume, real bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e transactions are being priced out and that is what is causing the\n\u003e\u003e massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since December\n\u003e\u003e 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was\n\u003e\u003e only with 1-5sat/vbyte.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Such justifiably worthless (\"worthless\" is not even my word -\n\u003e\u003e that's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the\n\u003e\u003e smooth and normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear\n\u003e\u003e digital currency, as it was intended to be used as.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should\n\u003e\u003e we take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of\n\u003e\u003e developers, miners, and users. Considering that miners are\n\u003e\u003e largely the entities at fault for allowing the system to be\n\u003e\u003e abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin transactions is being\n\u003e\u003e disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong history\n\u003e\u003e of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary\n\u003e\u003e - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should\n\u003e\u003e similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii)\n\u003e\u003e commits into the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole\n\u003e\u003e in BIP 342 (which defines the validation rules for Taproot\n\u003e\u003e scripts) which has allowed these unintended consequences?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e An alternative would be to enforce this \"censorship\" at the node\n\u003e\u003e level and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all\n\u003e\u003e non-standard Taproot transactions. This will be easier to\n\u003e\u003e implement, but won't hit the road until minimum next release.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I know that some people will have their criticisms about this,\n\u003e\u003e absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is\n\u003e\u003e fine, but we need to find a solution for this that fits\n\u003e\u003e everyone's common ground. We indirectly allowed this to happen,\n\u003e\u003e which previously wasn't possible before. So we also have a\n\u003e\u003e responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind of\n\u003e\u003e congestion can never happen again using Taproot.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e -Ali\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ---\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [1]:\n\u003e\u003e https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-the-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/\n\u003e\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\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\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/20230509/54e03016/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8f6697c6399219032ed6baa641b11817bd2b81ca955866211c07b8f0860fb6d1a870cb4d6876a7fbeaaff18d9a4d9e50e4dbf8a5cff8e1276717320dc5cbbaab"
}