Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)

* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)
       [not found] <mailman.126799.1690753843.956.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
@ 2023-07-31  4:12 ` Hugo L
  2023-08-02  5:58   ` Keagan McClelland
  2023-07-31 10:26 ` [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default Daniel Lipshitz
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Hugo L @ 2023-07-31  4:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13453 bytes --]

I don't think it's anyone's place to judge which types of transactions
should be allowed or not on the network, in fact, when it comes to privacy
and censorship resistance, it would be better if we were not even able to
distinguish different types of transactions from one another in the first
place.

We have limited resources on the blockchain and so they should go to the
highest bidder. This is already how the network functions and how it
ensures it's security.

Rather than thinking about this as "spam", I think it's useful to
objectively think about it in terms of value to the marketplace (fees
they're willing to pay) against cost to the network (storage consumed). It
comes down to supply and demand.

If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the
cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of storage that
can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are used
to produce Ordinals or something else)

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 5:51 PM , <
bitcoin-dev-request@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>         bitcoin-dev@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         bitcoin-dev-owner@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". (rot13maxi)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:34:12 +0000
> From: rot13maxi <rot13maxi@protonmail•com>
> To: L?o Haf <leohaf@orangepill•ovh>, "vjudeu@gazeta•pl"
>         <vjudeu@gazeta•pl>
> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>         <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
> Message-ID:
>
> <RIqguuebFmAhEDqCY_0T8KRqHBXEfcvPw6-MbDIyWsAWpLenFFeOVx88-068QFZr7xowg-6Zg988HsRCKdswtZC6QUKPXnrTyTAc_l5jphg=@
> protonmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello,
>
> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because
> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a standardization
> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
>
> One of the things discussed during the mempoolfullrbf discussion is that a
> small (~10%) of nodes willing to relay a class of transaction is enough for
> that class of transaction to consistently reach miners. That means you
> would need to get nearly the entire network to run updated relay policy to
> prevent inscriptions from trivially reaching miners and being included in
> blocks. Inscription users have shown that they are willing and able to send
> non-standard transactions to miners out of band (
> https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae),
> so even if you managed to get enough of the network running the new rule to
> prevent propagation to miners, those users can just go out of band. Or,
> they can simply change the script that is used to embed an inscription in
> the transaction witness. For example, instead of 0 OP_IF?, maybe they do 0
> OP_DUP OP_DROP OP_IF. When the anti-inscription people detect this, they
> have to update the rule and wait for 90%
>  + of the network to upgrade. When the pro-inscription people see this,
> they only have to convince other inscription enthusiasts and businesses to
> update.
>
> The anti-inscription patch has to be run by many more participants (most
> of whom don?t care), while the pro-inscription update has to be run by a
> small number of people who care a lot. It?s a losing battle for the
> anti-inscription people.
>
> If you want to prevent inscriptions, the best answer we know of today is
> economic: the cost of the blockspace needs to be more expensive than
> inscribers are willing to pay, either because its too expensive or because
> there?s no market demand for inscriptions. The former relies on Bitcoin
> becoming more useful to more people, the latter is the natural course of
> collectibles.
>
> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam here
> is the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
>
> Appeals to Satoshi are not compelling arguments.
>
> Cheers,
> Rijndael
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <[
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org](mailto:On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at
> 2:04 PM, L?o Haf via bitcoin-dev <<a href=)> wrote:
>
> > ?According to you, the rules of standardization are useless but in this
> case why were they introduced? The opreturn limit can be circumvented by
> miners, yet it is rare to see any, the same for maxancestorcount,
> minrelayfee or even the dust limit.
> >
> > This cat and mouse game can be won by bitcoin defenders. Why ? Because
> it is easier to detect these transactions and make them a standardization
> rule than to create new types of spam transactions.
> >
> > As for the default policy, it can be a weakness but also a strength
> because if the patch is integrated into Bitcoin Core by being activated by
> default, the patch will become more and more effective as the nodes update.
> >
> > Also, when it came to using a pre-segwit node, it is not a solution
> because this type of node cannot initiate new ones, which is obviously a
> big problem.
> >
> > Finally, I would like to quote satoshi himself who wrote about spam here
> is the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
> >
> >> Le 27 juil. 2023 ? 07:10, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a ?crit :
> >
> >>
> >
> >> ?
> >
> >>> not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by
> spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Note that some people, even on this mailing list, do not consider
> Ordinals as spam:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html
> >
> >>
> >
> >> See? It was discussed when it started. Some people believe that
> blocking Ordinals is censorship, and could lead to blocking regular
> transactions in the future, just based on other criteria. That means, even
> if developers would create some official version with that option, then
> some people would not follow them, or even block Ordinals-filtering nodes,
> exactly as described in the linked thread:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021487.html
> >
> >>
> >
> >>> as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network tolerates this
> kind of behavior
> >
> >>
> >
> >> But it is true, you have the whole pages, where you can find images,
> files, or other data, that was pushed on-chain long before Ordinals. The
> whole whitepaper was uploaded just on 1-of-3 multisig outputs, see
> transaction
> 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713. You have
> the whole altcoins that are connected to Bitcoin by using part of the
> Bitcoin's UTXO set as their database.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> That means, as long as you won't solve IBD problem and UTXO set growing
> problem, you will go nowhere, because if you block Ordinals specifically,
> people won't learn "this is bad, don't do that", they could read it as "use
> the old way instead", as long as you won't block all possible ways. And
> doing that, requires for example creating new nodes, without synchronizing
> non-consensus data, like it could be done in "assume UTXO" model.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Also note that as long as people use Taproot to upload a lot of data,
> you can still turn off the witness, and become a pre-Segwit node. But if
> you block those ways, then people will push data into legacy parts, and
> then you will need more code to strip it correctly. The block 774628 maybe
> contains almost 4 MB of data from the perspective of Segwit node, but the
> legacy part is actually very small, so by turning witness off, you can
> strip it to maybe just a few kilobytes.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> 1. Without a soft-fork, those data will be pushed by mining pools
> anyway, as it happened in the block 774628.
> >
> >> 2. Adding some settings won't help, as most people use the default
> configuration. For example, people can configure their nodes to allow free
> transactions, without recompiling anything. The same with disabling dust
> amounts. But good luck finding a node in the wild that does anything
> unusual.
> >
> >> 3. This patch produced by Luke Dashjr does not address all cases. You
> could use "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF" instead of "OP_FALSE OP_IF" used by Ordinals,
> and easily bypass those restrictions. This will be just a cat and mouse
> game, where spammers will even use P2PK, if they will be forced to. The
> Pandora's box is already opened, that fix could be good for February or
> March, but not now.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>> On 2023-07-26 11:47:09 user leohaf@orangepill•ovh wrote:
> >
> >>> 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 ? 07:30, vjudeu@gazeta•pl a ?crit :
> >
> >>>> 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).
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230730/dfc353d3/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 98, Issue 20
> *******************************************
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17180 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread