Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-10-27 📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-10-27
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:36:47PM +0100, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> > The cutoff for that is probably something like "do 30% of listening
> > nodes have a compatible policy"? If they do, then you'll have about a
> > 95% chance of having at least one of your outbound peers accept your tx,
> > just by random chance.
> Yes, in most cases, whether Bitcoin Core is restricting or loosening
> policy, the user in question is fine as long as they have a path from their
> node to a miner that will accept it. This is the case for something like
> -datacarriersize if the use case is putting stuff into OP_RETURN outputs,
> or if they're LN and using CPFP carveout, v3, package relay, etc.
> But
> replacement is not only a question of "will my transaction propagate" but
> also, "will someone else's transaction propagate, invalidating mine" or, in
> other words, "can I prevent someone else's transaction from propagating."
"Can I prevent someone else's transaction from propagating" is almost
the entirety of the question with -datacarrier, -datacarriersize and
-permitbaremultisig though: "we" don't want people to spam the utxo
set or the blockchain with lots of data (cf BSV's gigabytes worth of
dog pictures [0]), so for the people who are going to find some way
of putting data in we'd like to encourage them to make it small, and
do it in a way that's prunable and doesn't bloat the utxo set, whose
size matters even more than the overall blockchain's size does. As I
understand it, people were doing that by creating bare multisig utxos,
ie a bare (non-p2sh) scriptPubKey that perhaps looks like:
1 my_key data1 data2 data3 data4 data5 5 CHECKMULTISIG
which is "bad" in two ways: you're only committing to the data, so why
not save 128 bytes by doing hash(data1 data2 data3 data4 data5) instead;
and even more so, that data is only interesting to you, not everyone else,
so why not do it in a way that doesn't bloat the utxo set, which we want
to keep small so that it's easier to efficiently look up potential spends.
Hence the -datacarriersize limitation that limits you to about 2.5
"dataN" entries per tx ("we'll prevent your tx from propagating if you
do much more than publish a hash") and hence at least the potential for
doing the same for baremultisig in general.
[0] https://twitter.com/bsvdata/status/1427866510035324936
> A
> zeroconf user relies on there *not* being a path from someone else's full
> RBF node to a full RBF miner. This is why I think RBF is so controversial
> in general,
Yes; but I think it's also true to say that this is why *zeroconf* is as
controversial as it is.
Likewise OP_RETURN has had its own "controversies" to some extent, too:
https://blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-bitcoin-transactions-the-2014-debate/
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3715
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3939
> why -mempoolfullrbf on someone else's node is considered more
> significant than another policy option, and why full RBF shouldn't be
> compared with something like datacarriersize.
It's definitely a different scenario: unexpected RBF can cause you to
have less money than you expected; whereas more OP_RETURN data just
bloats the blockchain, and losing money that you thought was yours is
definitely more painful than more spam.
But while the level of pain is different; I don't think the mechanism is:
whether you're trying to preserve zeroconf or prevent utxo set spam,
you're still relying on a vast majority of nodes working together to
prevent even a small minority of hashpower from doing "bad" things, with
no cryptographic assurances that will continue to work well or at all.
> I don't think past patterns can be easily applied here,
I mean, technically they trivially could? We *could* roll out support for
full RBF in exactly the same way we rolled out support for opt-in RBF:
making it the default for all nodes, but supplying an option that node
operators can use to disable the feature for seven releases / ~4 years:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0#opt-in-replace-by-fee-transactions
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.19.0.1#deprecated-or-removed-configuration-options
If we don't want to do that immediately, but also want to make a definite
move forward, then we could:
* just say that, and then keep our word about it
* keep the feature in master, but remove it in 24.x
* put a time delay on the feature so that it doesn't happen immediately
but is locked in in the code for whenever we are ready to do it
> and I don't think this necessarily shows a
> different "direction" in thinking about mempool policy in general.
If we're not applying past patterns, then this is a different direction
in how we're thinking about things than what we did in the past.
That's not necessarily a bad thing -- maybe we should be thinking
differently; but I don't see how you can honestly dispute it: those are
just two ways of saying the exact same thing.
Cheers,
aj
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:36:47PM +0100, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> > The cutoff for that is probably something like "do 30% of listening
> > nodes have a compatible policy"? If they do, then you'll have about a
> > 95% chance of having at least one of your outbound peers accept your tx,
> > just by random chance.
> Yes, in most cases, whether Bitcoin Core is restricting or loosening
> policy, the user in question is fine as long as they have a path from their
> node to a miner that will accept it. This is the case for something like
> -datacarriersize if the use case is putting stuff into OP_RETURN outputs,
> or if they're LN and using CPFP carveout, v3, package relay, etc.
> But
> replacement is not only a question of "will my transaction propagate" but
> also, "will someone else's transaction propagate, invalidating mine" or, in
> other words, "can I prevent someone else's transaction from propagating."
"Can I prevent someone else's transaction from propagating" is almost
the entirety of the question with -datacarrier, -datacarriersize and
-permitbaremultisig though: "we" don't want people to spam the utxo
set or the blockchain with lots of data (cf BSV's gigabytes worth of
dog pictures [0]), so for the people who are going to find some way
of putting data in we'd like to encourage them to make it small, and
do it in a way that's prunable and doesn't bloat the utxo set, whose
size matters even more than the overall blockchain's size does. As I
understand it, people were doing that by creating bare multisig utxos,
ie a bare (non-p2sh) scriptPubKey that perhaps looks like:
1 my_key data1 data2 data3 data4 data5 5 CHECKMULTISIG
which is "bad" in two ways: you're only committing to the data, so why
not save 128 bytes by doing hash(data1 data2 data3 data4 data5) instead;
and even more so, that data is only interesting to you, not everyone else,
so why not do it in a way that doesn't bloat the utxo set, which we want
to keep small so that it's easier to efficiently look up potential spends.
Hence the -datacarriersize limitation that limits you to about 2.5
"dataN" entries per tx ("we'll prevent your tx from propagating if you
do much more than publish a hash") and hence at least the potential for
doing the same for baremultisig in general.
[0] https://twitter.com/bsvdata/status/1427866510035324936
> A
> zeroconf user relies on there *not* being a path from someone else's full
> RBF node to a full RBF miner. This is why I think RBF is so controversial
> in general,
Yes; but I think it's also true to say that this is why *zeroconf* is as
controversial as it is.
Likewise OP_RETURN has had its own "controversies" to some extent, too:
https://blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-bitcoin-transactions-the-2014-debate/
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3715
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3939
> why -mempoolfullrbf on someone else's node is considered more
> significant than another policy option, and why full RBF shouldn't be
> compared with something like datacarriersize.
It's definitely a different scenario: unexpected RBF can cause you to
have less money than you expected; whereas more OP_RETURN data just
bloats the blockchain, and losing money that you thought was yours is
definitely more painful than more spam.
But while the level of pain is different; I don't think the mechanism is:
whether you're trying to preserve zeroconf or prevent utxo set spam,
you're still relying on a vast majority of nodes working together to
prevent even a small minority of hashpower from doing "bad" things, with
no cryptographic assurances that will continue to work well or at all.
> I don't think past patterns can be easily applied here,
I mean, technically they trivially could? We *could* roll out support for
full RBF in exactly the same way we rolled out support for opt-in RBF:
making it the default for all nodes, but supplying an option that node
operators can use to disable the feature for seven releases / ~4 years:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0#opt-in-replace-by-fee-transactions
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.19.0.1#deprecated-or-removed-configuration-options
If we don't want to do that immediately, but also want to make a definite
move forward, then we could:
* just say that, and then keep our word about it
* keep the feature in master, but remove it in 24.x
* put a time delay on the feature so that it doesn't happen immediately
but is locked in in the code for whenever we are ready to do it
> and I don't think this necessarily shows a
> different "direction" in thinking about mempool policy in general.
If we're not applying past patterns, then this is a different direction
in how we're thinking about things than what we did in the past.
That's not necessarily a bad thing -- maybe we should be thinking
differently; but I don't see how you can honestly dispute it: those are
just two ways of saying the exact same thing.
Cheers,
aj