1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
|
Return-Path: <bnagaev@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E9BC0037
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:30:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE8440955
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:30:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 6EE8440955
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=R7j733Gf
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 4axElJ9caSLD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7814E4094C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 7814E4094C
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id
e9e14a558f8ab-3606ef221dbso47958825ab.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:30:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705447835; x=1706052635;
darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org;
h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date
:message-id:reply-to;
bh=bPqPKv1qVQ1vW02dAz7U75uUapGs4MVtIfJczdL8KQc=;
b=R7j733Gfesf4IJS5sc773qGyw1difrOv98MRJjs+kRMffXC08AJbN/ESR0WKU8Yk9m
+UPnPMSjbYj6Y+V4hUgZvTljCOrA/GYGlMQAMqGVuFQa/YJXiKTanZ9ILxgU3L0dWjEm
TSwGuoFcuusk0lYK1Rk464oLHmPS0B7KuQrLTA2YmkjLHoQTyZjHa/TYNYu4e4xv3RoY
tqhPo/5mc2T9BeGrKbO7HRXLo0QsBKlnrCUgq1JIkFEaarfRxZiqgfj9L7Sx+u7p5Nmi
q1E+KilLkLeZ72jLODNYdCbxwLPseu1J+vEQv5Iewn5FbMv/d745GhkDj71kLTzJ8ftD
z4fA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705447835; x=1706052635;
h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=bPqPKv1qVQ1vW02dAz7U75uUapGs4MVtIfJczdL8KQc=;
b=G7hJgZMt4nApn9XotO6PasRHmMPMPB4cc0WsU/cHdtIpgM9xcxDePRUeJUGZ2lCbNt
L6JiAZwEu3xeFsLbtAzqoAG85T9050cSb+Ge8E+/9h5tqvKoE9+u+6Ni7wPxz/AIwOG/
vUKulbroa51dWL023cHc2xF1y4ULvDLQ87ICjuYzB/5uSyxzhlEJs4HvMIhZFOxg3FOw
TjpF1/x2SurpEl9xiSTpjefGhc0s3k/B345VQveCHQRUJIO1xXzeUWsUdbK+6D4Cs0T0
sqNGnILwJNikoDTE85QvmPkYGY2WJrO7x5NB/h3KyLYVrhmrLEbtV+TkxJhO1D0h/WoJ
jOQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxw1mV3TWmSNiyXNf4aESkP3S3pwKPS2G4KmBBVteEIjueNxdvA
ee8ZpyWxgbBqO5h6Rj4c1hYCMEO3eTFXsr/DPYA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHA45vov8axwXtswButGqzCW+d7k4lXJPXLgVu866tJhWLiVijE2ek3LgQBfi1rpr84/Uy4N9i2wl3C1frpmgc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1342:b0:361:94fa:3959 with SMTP id
k2-20020a056e02134200b0036194fa3959mr333992ilr.0.1705447835480; Tue, 16 Jan
2024 15:30:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMHHROxsKuqzVsU90srQBNDj4redB11uqB2JxmDK=G1LDw9_HA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFC_Vt4pjZCMAZSi32Y3z-F3rrnnXVR4pvF5T4Ojrdb=Lsu97A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMHHROxBqLrBCT-y4Va5=xe6JUqb=FPyEq2PJ7=JrpqmHOJd8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMHHROxBqLrBCT-y4Va5=xe6JUqb=FPyEq2PJ7=JrpqmHOJd8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nagaev Boris <bnagaev@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 20:29:58 -0300
Message-ID: <CAFC_Vt4aDvWsUh4q+UxFa3ZyRC_eK2ek7HR-G+nOiaC-wSa-WA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Tonoski <gregtonoski@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:06:08 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BUG]: Bitcoin blockspace price discrimination
put simple transactions at disadvantage
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:30:37 -0000
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:03=E2=80=AFPM Greg Tonoski <gregtonoski@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 8:06=E2=80=AFPM Nagaev Boris <bnagaev@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 2:26=E2=80=AFPM Greg Tonoski via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > As a result, there are incentives structure distorted and critical
> > > inefficiencies/vulnerabilities (e.g. misallocation of block space,
> > > blockspace value destruction, disincentivized simple transaction,
> > > centralization around complex transactions originators).
> > >
> > > Price of blockspace should be the same for any data (1 byte =3D 1 byt=
e,
> > > irrespectively of location inside or outside of witness), e.g. 205/20=
5
> > > and 767/767 bytes in the examples above.
> >
> > Witness data does not contribute to utxo set. The discount on storing
> > data in witness creates an incentive to store data exactly in the
> > witness and not in the parts contributing to utxo set.
> >
> > $ du -sh blocks/ chainstate/
> > 569G blocks/
> > 9.3G chainstate/
> >
> > Witness data is part of the "blocks" directory which is not
> > latency-critical and can be stored on a slow and cheap storage device.
> > Directory "chainstate" contains the data needed to validate new
> > transactions and should fit into a fast storage device otherwise
> > initial block download takes weeks. It is important to maintain the
> > incentives structure, resulting in a small chainstate.
>
> I think that the argument "discount on storing data in witness creates
> an incentive to store data exactly in the witness (...)" is
> fallacious. The "witness discount" does not affect the cost of data
> storage in a Bitcoin node. What the "witness discount" affects is the
> priority of a transaction pending confirmation only. For example, a
> SegWit type of transaction of size of 1MB is prioritized (by miners)
> over a non-SegWit transaction of the same size and fee. "Segwit
> discount" benefits bloated transactions and puts simple transactions
> at disadvantage (demonstrated at
> "https://gregtonoski.github.io/bitcoin/segwit-mispricing/comparison-of-co=
sts.html"
> and "https://gregtonoski.github.io/bitcoin/segwit-mispricing/Comparison_o=
f_4MB_and_1.33MB_blocks_in_Bitcoin.pdf").
>
> The Bitcoin fee is not charged per UTXO set size. It is not charged
> from a node operator. Nodes are up and running independently of
> Bitcoin fees.
>
> Any relation between UTXO set size and discount would be artificial
> and inefficient, wouldn't it?
Node operators are likely to put UTXO set to SSD and blocks to HDD.
SSD is more expensive than HDD. It is aligned with the fact that
people putting data into blockchain are financially motivated to put
it into witness data, i.e. into HDD. If miners charge the same per 1
byte in a transaction output and 1 byte in witness, then people
putting data into blockchain could put it into transaction outputs
(why not, if the price is the same), inflating the UTXO set and making
node operators buy bigger SSD (more costs for node operators). As a
node operator, I prefer the current structure.
--=20
Best regards,
Boris Nagaev
|
