📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08
🗒️ Summary of this message: Paying a higher fee than the amount received when moving Lightning channel funds on-chain is not recommended as it results in losing value. Preventing dust transactions is to avoid storing non-bitcoin assets on-chain. The solution is to incentivize keeping such assets off of Bitcoin. Opcode validation suggestions are not effective as ordinals can time their fork and store data in a less efficient way.
📝 Original message:> value you can from these Lightning channel(s) onchain even if it means
paying a higher fee than the amount you are receiving.
in that case, you're not getting any value - you're losing value. the
only benefit i could imagine would be to prevent the other party from
having access to the funds should the channel expire.
regardless, this is an edge case. it's clear that a utxo whose value is
less than the fee paid to move it is dust, and we already have plenty of
code to censor dust transactions
> no reason to prevent
the reason to prevent them is to prevent something that has more value than
the bitcoin itself from being stored on-chain. that is to say:
real-estate ownership, nfts, or any other thing that isn't "using bitcoin
as money"
by going at the "incentive/economic layer", rather than pointlessly forcing
brc-20 and ordinals users to obfuscate their transactions, we can provide a
permanent incentive to keep that stuff off of bitcoin
personally, i'm not sure it's desirable to keep it off of bitcoin, but if
it is, the only sure way to disincentivize it is to go at it in this way or
similar
i suspect all the opcode validation suggestions are just silly. ordinals
can time their fork to the same moment, and store data in a less efficient,
but still functional, way using any number of mechanisms. we've had
similar things posted on-chain since 2010 (my favorite was a software
license key - in an attempt to make bitcoin nodes illegal. it's still in
there)
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:36 PM Michael Folkson <
michaelfolkson at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater
> than the amount receiving could possibly serve.
>
> If you expect fees to continue to rise and be sustained at abnormally high
> levels for a long period of time you might seek to close your Lightning
> channel(s) and move whatever value you can from these Lightning channel(s)
> onchain even if it means paying a higher fee than the amount you are
> receiving.
>
> I don't necessarily recommend doing this (it would depend on a number of
> factors, both personal and external) but there is no reason to prevent
> someone in say the consensus rules from doing this if they wish.
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
>
> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 20:47, Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote:
>
> im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater
> than the amount receiving could possibly serve.
>
> what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin?
>
> are there any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transactions?
>
> we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no route dust) to start with
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Michael Folkson <
> michaelfolkson at protonmail.com> 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
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/76ba5981/attachment-0001.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2…5taj0
2023-06-07 23:21:29
in reply to nevent1q…nx4h
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 23:21:29Event JSON
{
"id": "441f733200bb3667d5eb826eb16e513ea148e0736e49355364af6942cec3d747",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686180089,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99c4bf84b18ff56e33caa2ea8f0dff269c71fbc07db2947c8f69f4bfab247070",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5c3e0a6322238da1442d57f0e572c30ec62d13f87f77193f4d7b54623ed9aced",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7c4981f0d3c5eec97631de273b25b6435f0f33e0fa6cce270ddd3f3b8797d26a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-08\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Paying a higher fee than the amount received when moving Lightning channel funds on-chain is not recommended as it results in losing value. Preventing dust transactions is to avoid storing non-bitcoin assets on-chain. The solution is to incentivize keeping such assets off of Bitcoin. Opcode validation suggestions are not effective as ordinals can time their fork and store data in a less efficient way.\n📝 Original message:\u003e value you can from these Lightning channel(s) onchain even if it means\npaying a higher fee than the amount you are receiving.\n\nin that case, you're not getting any value - you're losing value. the\nonly benefit i could imagine would be to prevent the other party from\nhaving access to the funds should the channel expire.\n\nregardless, this is an edge case. it's clear that a utxo whose value is\nless than the fee paid to move it is dust, and we already have plenty of\ncode to censor dust transactions\n\n\u003e no reason to prevent\n\nthe reason to prevent them is to prevent something that has more value than\nthe bitcoin itself from being stored on-chain. that is to say:\nreal-estate ownership, nfts, or any other thing that isn't \"using bitcoin\nas money\"\n\nby going at the \"incentive/economic layer\", rather than pointlessly forcing\nbrc-20 and ordinals users to obfuscate their transactions, we can provide a\npermanent incentive to keep that stuff off of bitcoin\n\npersonally, i'm not sure it's desirable to keep it off of bitcoin, but if\nit is, the only sure way to disincentivize it is to go at it in this way or\nsimilar\n\ni suspect all the opcode validation suggestions are just silly. ordinals\ncan time their fork to the same moment, and store data in a less efficient,\nbut still functional, way using any number of mechanisms. we've had\nsimilar things posted on-chain since 2010 (my favorite was a software\nlicense key - in an attempt to make bitcoin nodes illegal. it's still in\nthere)\n\n\nOn Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:36 PM Michael Folkson \u003c\nmichaelfolkson at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater\n\u003e than the amount receiving could possibly serve.\n\u003e\n\u003e If you expect fees to continue to rise and be sustained at abnormally high\n\u003e levels for a long period of time you might seek to close your Lightning\n\u003e channel(s) and move whatever value you can from these Lightning channel(s)\n\u003e onchain even if it means paying a higher fee than the amount you are\n\u003e receiving.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't necessarily recommend doing this (it would depend on a number of\n\u003e factors, both personal and external) but there is no reason to prevent\n\u003e someone in say the consensus rules from doing this if they wish.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com\n\u003e GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F\n\u003e\n\u003e Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin\n\u003e\n\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 20:47, Erik Aronesty \u003cerik at q32.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater\n\u003e than the amount receiving could possibly serve.\n\u003e\n\u003e what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin?\n\u003e\n\u003e are there any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transactions?\n\u003e\n\u003e we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no route dust) to start with\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13 PM Michael Folkson \u003c\n\u003e michaelfolkson at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher\n\u003e\u003e than the sum of the outputs\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted\n\u003e\u003e Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I *want* to close my\n\u003e\u003e Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an\n\u003e\u003e onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you want to\n\u003e\u003e stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as well as\n\u003e\u003e requiring a consensus rule change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com\n\u003e\u003e GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e\u003e On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher\n\u003e\u003e 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 \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi guys,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e\u003e mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20\n\u003e\u003e\u003e having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out\n\u003e\u003e\u003e and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion\n\u003e\u003e\u003e because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Such justifiably worthless (\"worthless\" is not even my word - that's how\n\u003e\u003e\u003e its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal use of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was intended\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to be used as.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take\n\u003e\u003e\u003e an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for\n\u003e\u003e\u003e allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e\u003e transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely\n\u003e\u003e\u003e necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should\n\u003e\u003e\u003e similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which\n\u003e\u003e\u003e defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these\n\u003e\u003e\u003e unintended consequences?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e An alternative would be to enforce this \"censorship\" at the node level\n\u003e\u003e\u003e and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot\n\u003e\u003e\u003e transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road\n\u003e\u003e\u003e until minimum next release.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I know that some people will have their criticisms about this,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We\n\u003e\u003e\u003e indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible before.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kind\n\u003e\u003e\u003e of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -Ali\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ---\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e [1]:\n\u003e\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\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\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230508/76ba5981/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "b6b547475b2641138178211081afad2f0af74442b4ae75be86d8913ec8a86440614ea27198486223880dba8ec3c823fb3d1105f12c14c8ed201ea80afffddec5"
}