pull down to refresh
449 sats \ 14 replies \ @antic OP 18 Nov 2023 \ on: 1 to 1000 Taproot UTXO Explosion. Why? bitcoin
It gets weirder. These transactions seem to be reducing their outputs to entirely fees.
Here's one transaction that started as one of these 1000 UTXO explosions:
https://mempool.space/tx/0fadd6f563e379911511d0a66527840ee69a6d717f5e0ebe4930e1568a86df13
This split up .45 BTC into 1000 UTXOs of .00032514 each.
But then they each sent a new output like this:
https://mempool.space/tx/c4328feb964a63615bddc108a15af53260fc56613139c0cf82fcbc934585cbfc
sending only .00000294 BTC and spending the rest in miner fees.
Is this just miners, exploding and contracting UTXOs to pump fees...?
Or is this just a very expensive coinjoin?
Both of the blocks those tx were confirmed in were mined by f2pool
reply
yeah, I wonder if it's f2 specifically doing some shenanigans...
This kind of transaction that outputs 294 sats at the cost of 32,220 sats to a miner fee only makes sense if you are the one mining the transaction--and seeing this being done thousands of times... super sus.
reply
but then I see these appearing in MARA and Foundry... super odd...
reply
Did a little digging using Ordpool—
brc-20 token minting — all of them. You can look the tx up in Ordpool to confirm. So not miner collusion, just shitcoins.
{"p":"brc-20","op":"mint","tick":"dfsn","amt":"5"}
reply
Thanks! I find this usage to be totally insane but I guess it’s a thing people want to do. So bizarro.
reply
Once Binance listed ORDI it was game on I think.
reply
maybe they've calculated it forward and realized that by doing this kind of operation, it doesn't matter who collects the fees because the increased block fees are giving every block an additional 2BTC+ so they make it up and then some every time they successfully mine a block.
Interesting case for decentralized collusion.
reply
And I guess having more pools wouldn't help, because they could all still collude and achieve the same result. It would just be harder for a larger set of entities to collude.
But doesn't the prisoner's dilemma work against such collusion?
reply
Does it? If you spend .25BTC every 5 blocks in order to pump the average fee price in the mempool, you mine 1/5 of the blocks, you recapture some of that spend, and ensure that when you do mine a block, you get an extra 2-3BTC in fees. Has someone done a robust modeling of the trade-off for a large miner to engage in this kind of behavior?
reply
And what if you don't spend extra, will you not get an extra 2-3 BTC in fees because the others did?
Sorry if I'm not making sense, I haven't thought much about it and am just thinking out loud.
If there are indeed incentives for collusion, wouldn't this be a long term solution to the security budget issue? They would be incentivized to spend even more for even higher block rewards, but not so much that Bitcoin becomes useless and loses value.
reply
294 sats tx are ordinals I think.
reply
I'm not completely sure, but those 294 sat UTXO's are now below the dust level, thereby uneconomical to ever spend again. I heard "stamps" do this, but I don't understand how they can sell it again if it can't move.
reply
I suppose you could sell the actual private key… but then how do you ensure that only one person knows the key? Maybe that’s handled by wrapping it up in an abstraction. Seems like ultimately these just end up adding to the pile of permanently lost BTC.
reply
Looks like @okpj found that they are BRC20 tokens getting minted. Not sure how it works, but if it continues I'm definitely looking into mining to take back some sats for proper use. Lol
reply