pull down to refresh
you and I are closely aligned on this.
it may not seem like it by reading our interactions, but I suspect we're aligned on a lot of other things.
It’s not a big surprise that microcomputers that were barely able of keeping up five years ago are pushing their limit.
it's a big surprise that the team of brilliant software engineers dedicating (a subset of) their careers to protecting the worlds most important financial technology from idiocy were dumb enough to let these perfectly functional microcomputers get swamped by memory constraints when they were working perfectly just a handful of years ago.
note that it's not the storage getting swamped, it's the ram.
Before segwit, people were expecting blocks to land at 1.7–2.3 MB with full segwit adoption. The average blocksize has been about 1.6 MB in the last year.
it's the footprint of the UTXO set, not the size of blocks, not the drive size.
fee rates facilitating the creation UTXOs with huge witness is the problem. you don't want to un-discount the witness, and you don't want to solve for contiguous data. what would you like to solve for?
Additionally, it is a fact that inscriptions and OP_RETURN outputs are cheaper to validate than payment transactions, and most of the additional UTXOs created are spendable no different from any other payment output.
why mention validation?
their spendability is exactly the issue. UTXOs in the memory are what's constraining the decentralization onto weaker machines. the dominant cost on constrained hardware is UTXO set, not validation.
put another way, which sufficiently powerful computer would you recommend for some poor user outside of the 1st world to save up for in order to run a node for their community with the preferred permissionless blockchain, hmm? certainly not a fairly common and inexpensive raspi4.
Spammers are only buying blockspace nobody else is demanding at minimal feerates.
... doesn’t give you the right to tell other people what they are allowed to do with the blockspace they buy.
they're "buying block space" at witness discount rates.
tell me again why the witness discount was necessary?
(for the record, I don't agree that they're buying block space. miners sell placement priority in their templates not block-space... they can't sell something they don't own)
isolate a gullible crowd
isolation... by whom exactly? certainly not the people calling these invested individuals "rednecks"?
The proposal introduces seven consensus-level restrictions targeting data embedding vectors, yet Peter Todd demonstrated its fatal flaw by encoding the entire text of BIP-110 itself into a single compliant transaction.
embedding text is not a problem. embedding reams of paper, representing continuous data, that gets easily reassembled into images is SPAM.
The deeper issue is what BIP-110 represents for Bitcoin's future.
yeah, if Bitcoin's future is the antagonistic hyper-independent, I'm here for that. it's bitcoin's past, too.
The moment we start restricting transactions based on subjective judgments
every single mechanism for identifying changes in the protocol (as specified by the BIP) are objective
"legitimate" versus "illegitimate" use of block space
nope... it's financial data vs. non-financial data. this is a P2P cash network. there's no reason to continue accidentally enabled support for cat.gif.
we set a precedent that could be turned against any disfavored use case tomorrow.
what exact precedent are you describing? the precedent for not accepting network abuse by a minority of "art dealers" to take massive advantage of the stupid?
a forced UASF activation risks a chain split that would burn the community's coordination capital
if you run a node, then you know how to coordinate to address this
We should be solving the spam problem with better economics and smarter protocol design, not by giving anyone the power to decide which transactions deserve to exist.
a) better economics for who? certainly not the NFT hustlers who are enabled by v30. probably not the massive mining pools who are supplementing their shitty power costs by mining these fucked transactions (pre-v30) via out-of-band solutions.
b) Protocol design happens by BIP. This is a smart, limited solution to a fucking awful problem: remove accidental support, for 1 year in, in order to eliminate the profitability of the corporate entities engaged in this practice.
BIP-110 is not good.
Assertion.
Filtering data on the consensus level is a terrible idea, that will backfire immensely
Claim...
explanation? proof? demonstration?
transactions from obvious criminal activity
You're saying that BIP-110 is bad because the community which gets together around preventing a specific spam exploit is likely to get together around ... some list of specific form of "criminal activity".
that is, at least, easy enough to understand. I just don't think that it holds water.
right now, there are businesses who make their revenue exploiting unintended side effects of changes from long past, and (previous to v30) sidestepping the application filters to get that exploit into the permanent ledger.
metaprotocol is WAY better outcome, imo, than storing image data in the UTXOs
it's also a lot easier to point to and say: "look at this UTXO on the mempool browser, you're paying somebody to embed json... which isn't art, even if the JSON contains a pointer to some image file made by an artist, stored on some server somewhere"
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
Had to make a second response ... this is specifically addressed in the BIP, "UTXOs that were created before the activation height are exempt from the new rules. Once the softfork expires, UTXOs of all heights are once again unrestricted."
https://m.stacker.news/129848
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#specification
The argument should be about whether the new rules would be better or worse.
I think that this is exactly the frame of BIP110 (and maybe that's your point too?)
We all agree that:
- arbitrary data accumulation in the finance ledger is a cost we don't want to bear
- it is hard to coordinate a solution, no matter what
- we don't want to make another dumb, permanent mistake
- this is an acute problem, currently impacting decentralization (reducing supply of nodes which can functionally perform the IBD)
- the relatively few individuals facilitating this SPAM situation are not going to have to pay the for it
- the network is a very significant part of the value proposition of bitcoin
- the relatively few individuals making money this way are imposing a significant cost on the network and its node operators,
The author(s?) of BIP110 assert:
- Inputs spending UTXOs that were created before the activation height are exempt from the new rules.
- The new rules expire, returning us to the original state without committing to anything other than a single coordinated action against these relatively few individuals creating this data bloat
- It's important to act, and quickly, to impact the business interest of these individuals
- This is a temporary change, with real risks if miners play a strategy of not working with the users
- Any solution will require significant coordination, this requires the minimal level of coordination, while still significantly disincentivizes the embedding of contiguous arbitrary data larger than 256 bytes
see also, the ideal solutions to the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
I appreciate your response
Likewise, and please enjoy the sort of creative forum posting I think of as my art (please pay me)... here goes
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
yeah... you've used this word "bought". what is the purchaser of a NFT buying?
are they buying Art? if so... that's not bitcoin, because bitcoin is peer2peer cash (says so in white paper)
we can give the benefit of the doubt... it's probably not just a scheme to enable Justin Bieber to dodge taxes but also enable the shuffling of wealth between jurisdictions.
okay, great, it's settled... they feel that it is "art"! still... just because I thought it was a date, didn't make it one.
Who told them it was art? Was it some huckster who'd hired an artist? Or perhaps the artist told them the bitcoin in that "wallet" they had to make on one of what?? 3 or 4 different sites were most prolific for buying all those ads, driving all that traffic to the websites, displaying hundreds of parametrically generated jpgs & providing a super convenient custodial wallets that a user could send real bitcoin to, and then generate UTXO dust & minting fees for this super legitimate form of art.
Well, who told them? It wasn't you, I don't think. Probably not either of your parents.
For the sake of the discussion, let's imagine it was the Artist themselves who told them it was art. They not only actually made the NFT themselves (not using a proprietary website) and then created that "Art" in their custodial wallet, that they also crafted artistically. They then coordinated the manic countdown and telegram group pressure and sudden release of these ARTs so that their customers could use custodial web-wallets to provide outpoints for the UTXOs generated by these NFT wallets... oh sorry, Art wallets.
Okay, so we're imaging at least for a moment that they did... all of this... to sell their art.
Are you also telling me that from now on, you want every artist using this specific medium to feel comfortable expecting you to carry storage costs from here to the end of time, just because they told somebody you would?
Certainly seems a lot like an externality.
As far as I can tell, a user of bitcoin who bought bitcoin in 2011 can still use bitcoin in the same ways they did when they first started using it (plus in a bunch of new ways).
the robot offered these examples..
well...
First of allFirst of all
it's your node... so do what you want.
personally, I'm still running a version lower than 24. I respect your right to do whatever you want with your hardware (to the extent that your hardware will support it).
some years ago, I ran Core™️'s software on a raspberry pi 3... you might have noticed that's no longer an option, because that device can no longer process the UTXO set through IBD.
I like to take it slow with my savings and I hadn't formed an opinion about BIP110 until Feb 6th, just moments before sending a friend who's a bitcoin dev a message:
https://m.stacker.news/129741
Secondly (of all)Secondly (of all)
I'll be honest that when I read this, it felt like you hadn't yet read the https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Motivation:
get used to the idea of "bad" valid transactions
Back in the days of the Captain Crunch whistle, it was possible to make the phone company's computer think a valid phone call was being made on the payphone network. That wasn't a valid phone call, it was an exploit. The p2p cash network is being exploited for data storage.
And then, your follow-up statement:
"I have zero confidence that we stop with spam" is specifically addressed in the BIP:
This is specifically addressed in the BIP.
No. It is impossible to solve spam completely, and typically spam is best fought with policy/filters, not consensus. What this softfork does is require users wanting to store large unencrypted files in the blockchain to disguise the data as financial data and/or break it up into multiple data pushes.
Lastly (for now)Lastly (for now)
Specifically, this proposal invalidates all methods of embedding contiguous arbitrary data larger than 256 bytes; it also invalidates large scriptPubKey and Tapleaf formats that are abused almost exclusively for data embedding; and finally, it restores, in consensus, the long-established 83-byte policy limit on OP_RETURN outputs.
Until v30 you (and your ancestors, who I presume will also be node-operators) were getting hosed by some of the largest, financially aligned network participants leverage fiat financial engineering to make more fiat, in a high-time preference way. So, we pay them for it... but they're not our friends.
Now the developers who forced this mempool policy change through (despite considerable pushback from the community (before retiring from the project, evidently?!?)) have opened up every future user of the software to helping those least-aligned participants get paid to store somebody's backups on every raspberry pi 4 struggling to stand up under an overweight UTXO set, in every poor corner of the earth.
It's a good time to point out that... WE DON'T PAY CORE DEVELOPERS. They're getting paid by somebody tho :) And that's probably something the community should find a better way of addressing. Same is true for politicians in the US... low salary incentivizes influence peddling.
... the fee for a data storage transaction still goes only to the miner who includes the data in a block, but the burden of storing the data falls on all node operators, who never received even a part of the fee, yet are forced to continue downloading, storing, and serving the data forever.
In this case, the miner accepts a one-time fee, and in exchange, the priceless service of highly-available, uncensorable data storage is provided in perpetuity for free by node operators.
One last thingOne last thing
If you don't like the idea of BIP110 after 1 year, then you just don't adopt any further implementation of it. If the spammers continue to operate afterwards, then we know that style of change is ineffective.
And to this point, at the risk of damaging my own argument in favor of signaling BIP110 (especially since https://www.todayonchain.com/news/article/01K8NA96KBQ0SDSTPK0NCG64SK/ to), I think it's important to point out that the better arguments against BIP110 are:
a) Fork riska) Fork risk
Here, I'll add my friend's final remark about BIP110... I imagine I could get more details if I poke around for it, but I don't want to push the issue with somebody who's probably had plenty of talking about it already and might be over it for now.
https://m.stacker.news/129749
b) Todd demonstrated BIP110 doesn't stop spamb) Todd demonstrated BIP110 doesn't stop spam
Todd actually demonstrated that BIP110 considerably reduces the impact of this kind of data-backup exploit.
I think this is particularly significant since it's got 2 possible fork points... but, also... the fork wars were also an airdrop, if you were running a node. I do think it's necessary for the community of node-runners to re-engage with the decisive nature of bitcoin. This is a continuous process of taking responsibility for custodianship of our currency from the moneylenders and fraudsters who have done us the honor of no less than a century of total war, destruction of whole societies in the name of laundering money, and doing so in way so as to leave us (the ones who work for our money) arguing amongst ourselves.
https://m.stacker.news/129747
Closing this down for real nowClosing this down for real now
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to put my thoughts together a bit better.
It's short sighted
plot twist, it works just like its supposed to hahahahhaha
central authority Bitcoin was built to eliminate.
appeal to emotion.
spam is spam. there's nothing wrong with coordinating among peers to disincentivize it.
this sort of shit is the result of the stupid block size wars where somebody wanted to make money quickly, and needed centralizing changes. compromises were made, after the "industry" pushed for 4mb blocks, and we wound up with 2mb blocks.
I think BIP110 is nice, but suspect the temporary nature of it will yield complexities in understanding potential consequences, when paired with things like quantum FUD
something like this?
https://youtu.be/40SnEd1RWUU
It all runs in heavily isolated environments
can you elaborate on this a bit? (please)
I'm interested to improve my adoption of these robots, and i'm fairly technical... but haven't really explored using them more creatively, i.e. outside of my dayjob, or for web application development
Stolen Bitcoin Reserve
(not my joke.. maybe it was @ODELL)
in the case of these problematic UTXOs, it's not the metaprotocol that's the problem. meta protocol is (as you've suggested) just JSON formatting, indicating what kind of message we're looking at.
the issue of the "spam" is not the JSON. it's that there's a bunch of data embedded in witness, which is part of the UTXO and needs to stay in RAM in order to validate incoming blocks. since the UTXO is unspent validation requires that the node keeps track of this information. that is what's filling up the RAM of the computers operating validating nodes.