Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:52:47 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <YlmGv6WbDeDqGJKX@petertodd.org>
References: <CAD5xwhik6jVQpP2_ss7d5o+pPLsqDCHuaXG41AMKHVYhZMXF1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YgS3sJvg6kG3WnVJ@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhi3Ja8gdU2h_6-1ck4kdU0TiC2Kx5O-61=f9=6JQSMs=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YhAwr7+9mGJAe2/p@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhi=sKckFZew75tZTogoeFABraWtJ6qMC+RgZjcirxYyZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YhC6yjoe3bAfBS+W@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhjR06Lp3ka-MqZQE64tfE5uDQB6TrMh06khjYrDzuT95g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YlMw5NxXnGV9WrVg@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhj1kaJf+QCcf1MOtaAec-xTTr2M9LkJPCu2Ej0L9_3iPg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zR9fMjOR83TFkKpc"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhj1kaJf+QCcf1MOtaAec-xTTr2M9LkJPCu2Ej0L9_3iPg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts
Precedence: list


--zR9fMjOR83TFkKpc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:18:10AM -0400, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> > nonsense marketing
>=20
> I'm sure the people who are confused about "blockchain schemes as \"world
> computers\" and other nonsense
> marketing" are avid and regular readers of the bitcoin devs mailing list =
so
> I offer my sincerest apologies to all members of the intersection of those
> sets who were confused by the description given.

Of course, uninformed people _do_ read all kinds of technical materials. And
more importantly, those technical materials get quoted by journalists,
scammers, etc.

> > useless work
>=20
> progress is not useless work, it *is* useful work in this context. you ha=
ve
> committed to some subset of data that you requested -- if it was 'useless=
',
> why did you *ever* bother to commit it in the first place? However, it is
> not 'maximally useful' in some sense. However, progress is progress --
> suppose you only confirmed 50% of the commitments, is that not progress? =
If
> you just happened to observe 50% of the commitments commit because of
> proximity to the time a block was mined and tx propagation naturally would
> you call it useless?

Please don't trim quoted text to the point where all context is lost. Lots =
of
people read this mailing list and doing that isn't helpful to them.

> > Remember that OTS simply proves data in the past. Nothing more.
> > OTS doesn't have a chain of transactions
> Gotcha -- I've not been able to find an actual spec of Open Time Stamps

The technical spec of OpenTimestamps is of course the normative validation
source code, currently python-opentimestamps, similar to how the technical =
spec
of Bitcoin is the consensus parts of the Bitcoin Core codebase. The explana=
tory
docs are linked on https://opentimestamps.org under the "How It Works" sect=
ion.
It'd be good to take the linked post in that section and turn it into better
explanatory materials with graphics (esp interactive/animated graphics).

> anywhere, so I suppose I just assumed based on how I think it *should*
> work. Having a chain of transactions would serve to linearize history of
> OTS commitments which would let you prove, given reorgs, that knowledge of
> commit A was before B a bit more robustly.

I'll reply to this as a separate email as this discussion - while useful - =
is
getting quite off topic for this thread.

> >  I'd rather do one transaction with all pending commitments at a
> particular time
> rather than waste money on mining two transactions for a given set of
> commitments
>=20
> This sounds like a personal preference v.s. a technical requirement.
>=20
> You aren't doing any extra transactions in the model i showed, what you're
> doing is selecting the window for the next based on the prior conf.

=2E..the model you showed is wrong, as there is no reason to have a lineari=
zed
transaction history. OpenTimestamps proofs don't even have the concept of
transactions: the proof format proves that data existed prior to a merkle r=
oot
of a particular Bitcoin block. Not a Bitcoin transaction.

> See the diagram below, you would have to (if OTS is correct) support this
> sort of 'attempt/confirm' head that tracks attempted commitments and
> confirmed ones and 'rewinds' after a confirm to make the next commit
> contain the prior attempts that didn't make it.
>=20
> [........................................................................=
=2E]
>  ------^ confirm head tx 0 at height 34
>         ------------------------^ attempt head after tx 0
>          -----------^ confirm head tx 1 at height 35
>                       --------------------------^ attempt head after tx 1
>                       ------------^ confirm head tx 2 at height 36
>                                      -------------------------------^
> attempt head after tx 2
>                                       -------------------------------^
> confirm head tx 3 at height 37
>=20
> you can compare this to a "spherical cow" model where RBF is always perfe=
ct
> and guaranteed inclusion:
>=20
>=20
> [........................................................................=
=2E]
>  ------^ confirm head tx 0 at height 34
>        -------------------------^ confirm head tx 1 at height 35
>                                        -----------^ confirm head at tx 1
> height 36
>                                                        -----------------^
> confirm head tx 3 at height 37
>=20
> The same number of transactions gets used over the time period.

None of the above has anything to do with how OpenTimestamps works.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I remain of the opinion that in =
the
unlikely event that fee accounts is ever implemented, it should be opt-in.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--zR9fMjOR83TFkKpc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=3m3X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zR9fMjOR83TFkKpc--