pull down to refresh
That's fair but the present fee market is evidence that arbitrary data is of dubious value, it doesn't scale well (consider Jevons paradox), and that's not necessary for long term archival, or the best way to use Bitcoin anyway.
If we're worried about the security budget, I recommend looking into the heatpunk movement. Big fan of Tyler Stevens' work with Exergy, and also the Gridless efforts in Africa.
But isn't BIP 110 a proposal to change block validation rules in order to reduce data (which I think is almost =spam in usage here)?
What I'm curious about is why aren't the fee market + block limit sufficient here. Why do we need to also pursue these changes to block validation rules?
To tighten protocol consensus to make it more defensible against all threats.
We talk a lot about arbitrary data. We do not talk enough about the problem of structured data. When smart people use op codes that actually do things, but in malicious ways.
Are you referring to something like a transaction that is designed to have quadratic hashing and take other nodes a very long time to verify, or are you referring to people embedding "illegal" content?
Probably there are other things of which I am not even aware. But I'd be grateful if you were willing to expand on this a bit.
The illegal content argument is an argument against arbitrary data so far as I'm aware.
When I bring up structured data, it is a reference to PBAs such as those that do make use of quadratic signature verification techniques, oftentimes leveraging legacy sigops accounting rules.
1500s for a block that normally takes 1s is pretty bad in the one public demo I did see, and there are others.
I imagine the Great Consensus Cleanup (which also addresses many of these cases) could probably get more widespread support than BIP 110.
Given that BIP 110 has been mostly marketed as reducing arbitrary data, it feels like a strange way to go about dealing with quadratic hashing et al concerns.
BIP 54 mitigates the threat but does not provide sufficient protection.
It takes 1500s to verify a block down to 5s, which is still 500% worse than what most are used to in IBD so far.
We should be restricting scriptPubKey length. 520b was good, 34b is even better.
Hello sir! I appreciate you taking the time to come hang out with us.
I have taken a dubious eye about the spam conversation since the beginning, because I feel together the fee market and block space limits are adequate and powerful means of controlling spam on bitcoin.
I'm curious why I should change my mind.