pull down to refresh
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheCharlatan 25 Sep \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
I don't think it is that new, but you are definitely correct that lightning helped shaping it into that direction. What do you think its primary purpose should be?
I should have said "relatively new" - 50 years minimum horizon, lol.
What do you think its primary purpose should be?
Disclaimer: never listen to a retard like me!
But since you are asking, I'd say that it depends on use-case.
- No mempool. I agree with Gmax' argument that
blocksonly
is a perfect mode, for "leaf" nodes 1. Also, I feel that while a properly running relay node may help, a badly configured one or low-capacity node doesn't 2. If you're just looking to do your own validation of (low volume) utxos, no mempool is the best mempool, as you anyway don't want to zeroconf. - Knowing what's going on with your LN channels (or other pre-confirmation risk monitoring). Like I said above, for watchtowers you want to know as much as you can, even stuff that is unlikely to get mined 3. This is technically more permissive than being a reflection of what gets mined, especially when we see pool / template decentralization.
- But we do need relays also without LN, because hub-and-spoke would be bad for centralization. For this, I'd say the mempool is basically your pre-validated set of transactions that you pass around, like a hot database of what you want to relay to others. This is the use case where - although not necessarily useful from where I'm sitting - filters could make sense if an operator feels strongly about it. Since someone filtering important transactions is a threat scenario that needs to be minimized no matter what, it shouldn't be too much of a problem when other operators do this.
- Edit because I forgot: And as a stage for mining of course. I wouldn't filter my mempool if I were a miner/pool, but I'd definitely look to filter my inclusion rules.
Footnotes
-
it would be useful to have (degraded?) smartfee work when a node has only the block inclusion statistics, i.e. estimate based on what was mined only, without tracking confirmation time of seen->mined. I'm still building some test scenarios based on a discussion we had about this on SN a week or so ago and have promised to share anything I think can be improved (but I'm slow, sry.) ↩
-
In the past Ian Coleman had a simulator (pre-segwit, pre-compactblocks and now discontinued?) that illustrated the impact of more nodes on the network in terms of hops a tx would need to travel and what kind of data use we'd look at network-wide, which was interesting to play with. ↩
-
I've had the temptation to make my watchtower
allownonstandard
but since there were little/no peers with that and I felt there may be some risks I would miss and then not catch (don't want to be banned from all peers), I instead ran with a maximally permissive policy through config and a much-larger-than-default mempool (had thought of using librerelay instead.) Either way, this is why I feel configurability is very important. Someone may need it for a reason no one thought of. ↩
reply