leohaf at orangepill.ovh [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2023-07-25 to 2023-08-03
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-08-04 11:36:12

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-08-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: Utreexo is seen as a potential solution to reduce the time it takes to sync the blockchain, but it may come at the cost of larger transactions.
📝 Original message:
Utreexo only seems to save us time if it is used in "bridge" mode otherwise it takes soft fork for all nodes to use Utreexo at the price of larger transaction.
The problem is not here for the moment, it is imperative to solve the problem of inscription that quickly brings us closer to the need for Utreexo.
> Le 3 août 2023 à 15:33, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
> After looking into this more deeply (thanks to Luke Dashjr for pointing me in the right direction) it is now clear to me that storage isn't the real issue, but rather the "initial blockchain sync" time - in which storage certainly has a significant role to play, at least currently.
>
> At the moment, UTreeXO seems like a promising first step. Perhaps there is a more efficient way to sync the chain without having to download everything and while still verifying it trustlessly.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, 7:43 AM , <bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev-owner at 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". (Keagan McClelland) (Einherjar)
>> 2. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Daniel Lipshitz)
>> 3. Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on OP_Return outputs
>> (Peter Todd)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:50:30 +0000
>> From: Einherjar <realeinherjar at proton.me <mailto:realeinherjar at proton.me>>
>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Keagan McClelland
>> <keagan.mcclelland at gmail.com <mailto:keagan.mcclelland at gmail.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan
>> McClelland)
>> Message-ID:
>> <EGcuw9I68gwGmFMMw_OstpvAHQ0sWleUi3Jfa8t9A14fa5PGYR2EAxJIjwKd8jo5JtUfmyw9taF1qEsQlVoXBpLUxixdlBpIOEhuXzTUSEc=@proton.me <http://proton.me/>>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> 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.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: publickey - realeinherjar at proton.me <mailto:realeinherjar at proton.me> - 0xBF60A699.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-keys
>> Size: 657 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.bin>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: signature.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-signature
>> Size: 249 bytes
>> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
>> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/cf726d41/attachment-0001.sig>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 18:29:54 +0300
>> From: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel at gap600.com <mailto:daniel at gap600.com>>
>> To: Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org <mailto:pete at petertodd.org>>
>> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
>> Message-ID:
>> <CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ at mail.gmail.com>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> 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 <http://www.gap600.com/>
>> Phone: +44 113 4900 117
>> Skype: daniellipshitz123
>> Twitter: @daniellipshitz
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 1:38?PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel at gap600.com <mailto:daniel at gap600.com>> 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 <http://www.gap600.com/>
>> > Phone: +44 113 4900 117
>> > Skype: daniellipshitz123
>> > Twitter: @daniellipshitz
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28?AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org <mailto:pete at petertodd.org>> 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 support at coinspaid.com <mailto:support at 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 <http://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 <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org/>
>> >>
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +0000
>> From: Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org <mailto:pete at petertodd.org>>
>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on
>> OP_Return outputs
>> Message-ID: <ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN at petertodd.org <mailto:ZMuSsBkWqVXO9qoN at petertodd.org>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130
>>
>> Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my intent
>> to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output /
>> tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
>> removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up additional
>> transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any
>> relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important
>> concern. But consider this email your notice.
>>
>> At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard
>> transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these pinning
>> vectors may in fact exist already.
>>
>>
>> # References
>>
>> 1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/
>>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://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/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 6
>> ******************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230803/e79e980d/attachment-0001.html>

2023-08-04 11:36:12

- reply

2023-08-03 17:31:03

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-08-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: Davidson Souza introduces `libfloresta`, a Utreexo powered Bitcoin full node with integrated watch-only wallet and Electrum Server, designed for low-power devices.
📝 Original message:
Hi, delighted to see an implementation of Utreexo.
I will just have a few questions about your implementation.
1) Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the reference implementation or on Floresta?
2) Is it possible to switch from Bitcoin Core to Floresta without causing a new IDB?
3) Is Floresta backward compatible with Bitcoin Core's RPC commands?
> Le 31 juil. 2023 à 19:47, Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
> Hi, list. My name is Davidson, and I’m thrilled to share `libfloresta` with the Bitcoin devs mailing list!
>
> This is a derivate of a project I’ve been developing for a few months, called `Floresta` (Portuguese for forest). An Utreexo powered, Fully-Validating Bitcoin Full node with integrated watch-only wallet and Electrum Server, meant to be a compact, simple, and ready to use full node for end users.
>
> After some feedbacks and thoughts, I’ve decided to turn it into a series of reusable libs that can be used in other applications in a straightforward way. The main goal here is low-power devices, like SBC and smartphones, but can be used in any environment. To achieve that, I’m writing the main logic in Rust and will generate bindings to the original code and compiling to WASM, allowing it to run virtually anywhere.
>
> The project is in an early stage, but I’m using it on signet for a while now with no problems. Mainnet support is almost ready, but we need to solve some performance issues with bridge nodes and set some up, so you can have utreexo peers.
>
> The project is available on [my GitHub](https://github.com/Davidson-Souza/Floresta) and I wrote an initial [blogpost](https://blog.dlsouza.lol/2023/07/07/libfloresta.html) explaining how to use it (in Rust). I’ll write more as the project matures, and I get it running on other platforms. Any feedback is welcome!
>
> ## Consensus
>
> I know that alternative implementations is a spicy subject in Bitcoin land, but this project **does not** reimplement the Bitcoin Consensus machine from scratch. I’m using `libbitcoinconsenus` and plan to use the full `libbitcoinkernel` in the future. While this doesn’t guarantee consistency, it minimizes misimplementations leading to splits.
>
> I’m also making an extra effort into cross-test against Bitcoin Core to find any inconsistencies before it causes any trouble.
>
> ## Acknowledges
>
> A special thanks to [Vinteum](https://vinteum.org/) for supporting my work with utreexo and Floresta.
>
> Best regards,
> Davidson Souza.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto: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/20230803/eaaac13b/attachment.html>

2023-08-03 17:31:03

- reply

2023-07-27 00:26:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-07-26
🗒️ Summary of this message: Inscriptions are a major spam attack in the Bitcoin network, and not taking action against them could encourage more similar attacks in the future. Adding a standardization option could be a solution.
📝 Original message:
I understand your point of view. However, inscription represent by far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed themselves in the witness with a fee reduction.
Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field which could also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the standardization rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented similar abuses.
Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to more serious issues, not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could encourage more similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior.
I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not.
> Le 26 juil. 2023 à 07:30, vjudeu at gazeta.pl a écrit :
>
>> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed more seriously
>
> Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is preserved. If tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state of the network would be "just do nothing", and every solution would be backward-compatible with that approach. Burn old coins, and people will call it "Tether", redistribute them, and people will call it "BSV". Leave everything untouched, and the network will split into N parts, and then you pick the strongest chain to decide, what should be done.
>
>> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr.
>
> Because the real solution should address some different problem, that was always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the problem of forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-growing UTXO set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just that, but this code is not yet completed.
>
>> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempool of a node.
>
> Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will block one inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are present even on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That means, if you try to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular indistinguishable transactions, and then you will go back to those more serious problems under the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size.
>
>> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
>
> The community also rejected things like sidechains, and they are still present, just in a more centralized form. There are some unstoppable concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They believe their rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the case, as you can create a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some invalid Ordinals transaction (because their additional rules are not enforced by miners and nodes).
>
>
>

2023-07-27 00:26:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-07-25
🗒️ Summary of this message: The writer is concerned about a bug in recent software versions that causes inscriptions to take up a large amount of space on the blockchain, impacting the UTXO set. They request options to reject inscriptions in the mempool and raise ethical questions about NFTs and Tokens.
📝 Original message:
Hello,
I am writing to you today because I am concerned about a significant bug that seems to be overlooked in recent versions of the software. The bug in question concerns the "inscriptions" developed by @rodarmor, and it worries me because, in just a few months, they have already reached a size of 11.8GB on the blockchain, causing issues with the UTXO set, which appears to be growing by about 25MB per day.
I understand that there may be discussions about the nature of these inscriptions, but personally, I find it hard not to consider them as spam. Their recurring nature and their impact on the size of the UTXO set and the blockchain itself seem concerning, and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed more seriously.
I would also like to point out that there are options in Bitcoin Core to choose the mempool policy, such as datacarrier or permitbaremultisig. However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr. Unfortunately, this patch is unusable for most people as it requires compiling Bitcoin Core.
So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempool of a node. Such a feature could give users the ability to customize their approach in managing these particular cases and help mitigate the negative impact of inscriptions on the network.
In addition to the technical issues, I also find that this situation raises ethical questions. Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.
Therefore, I kindly request you, as Bitcoin developers, to take this concern into consideration and seriously consider implementing a feature that would allow users to reject inscriptions in the mempool. Such a measure would contribute to protecting the integrity of the network.
Thank you sincerely for your attention to this matter.
Léo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230725/2fa251bb/attachment.html>

2023-07-27 00:26:35

- reply

2023-07-27 00:26:35

- reply