Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2115EC002A for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 22:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93C68449D for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 22:37:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org E93C68449D Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=XlQ8fn6U X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EEs49xlt5Gbo for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 22:37:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 6A69284485 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A69284485 for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 22:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.77.250] (unknown [12.190.236.196]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 791C238AF5A5; Mon, 8 May 2023 22:37:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1683585458; bh=UodbI691JctlQt1VNZAjgAw0RUm6jdlIKK3qd+igrbY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=XlQ8fn6Ub3hb8u1CLs07apiUs/9BvTxpTs2yOn/vpSpNvv4iJ1j8Nw4ex+8IuPXsq XiOSolwv0EkalHJvYVvTLEffASsDq8vlj/7RvdQdbsWKuMWalPS5p9f2MxGh229IS3 7GsugwzSYOcasCitv0t0VTL4sKUDLOL0fmljUg+I= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0xRc3vn1fNk7qbC0eYt1m611" Message-ID: <0aea4ec5-7d6a-f358-3c20-854001588031@dashjr.org> Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 18:37:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 To: Ali Sherief , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: Content-Language: en-US From: Luke Dashjr In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 22:37:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0xRc3vn1fNk7qbC0eYt1m611 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------0xRc3vn1fNk7qbC0eYt1m611 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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

---


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------0xRc3vn1fNk7qbC0eYt1m611--