Just did a little sleuthing on the OP_RETURN > 83 bytes from @oomahq 's post (https://x.com/oomahq/status/1916793928025596338). There were 30 such transactions in the ~4 month period: 8 had reasonable fees (< 2x the median for the block) 11 had around double fees 7 had around triple fees 4 had 5x-8x fees 9 were mined by F2Pool (10-11%) 21 were mined by Mara (6-7%) So in general, the OP_RETURN filter means the non-standard transactions were on average paying a good deal more than normal transactions to get into a block. And since only about 18% of the hashing power seems to mine them, they had to wait 5-6x longer to confirm. If the point of filters is to make spamming cumbersome and costly, I'd say that they're doing their job. TX IDs in the first comment so you can look for yourself. image

Replies (17)

79e11a1c98e6c03bd7a8811811d196579581e882285748db27d06d29c4ed3d38 5b25172bac279f9d09738a1dac6bd688be88fe238d6114eb8213d57a9b06a8cf 37b780a619c5193d953ec51a68fab2dcb37fbd92ddc306a53ab901758c2a199e 9958e96fddb6e60f761cf7a053bc8d3bfd3d1baf3578531afbe6df26d05ec565 59ccb07c79d726218778f65eba57d55ba739684b666adc295625a070cd84903c 6520750bcc83038a4fc4f70a3266942243c87802fd2e7947bec432f5f40f2e83 974c0ccc4d833e16d8f7fa23e07393ceca72fd392ca30b4b512223752ae4cada 67a634a815f1333d28e05273838db6e24ba9aa9720236e610a143ce6da2065f7 52c1447dd35fc00fe93436d88450636cc3190fd73fa78f2d63dcbbb32d287d20 7693cd708ab270020cd3f39e3d3266156dfd0fa735ca8e91cc0e30e567d830ac 5b91778e4b5565c2d2dd5e206d64d6acb279df6791c71698bc953bbac59f4b68 a79118c823c63b27a02119aa73279c2e284cdd572b85ee53366f776542dfa9a4 4cb5585eace5cb2c24b32cd809174525394b6e8bd8814b47234fdc3cbe51b45e e1bfc86a59186dd069e6b3a338b8c5149f1f48c8e32c0b3849625430bdae9ed8 efc71653f23d8e1722e65ddc84ed21c191b9efe17439930f8d652ede21cdefc9 a54a2b2d361ce44718fe02e4b18b87f700367bc0461d253c639b9bd99049d3b0 a29cb2cc6af1ca82080ce9443cc60fe546befd1f369b75378820c5b4cb5321bf 82f8e8cb0f8eea5059e297a781c68b40c9c85d0f3c5ed867faa214b3a75b0763 c4612a47bf0ee9ab6b420e7f0583f059ee4f48295e35bf939bcfaae4b9a7981f 1e5cfe4650fcb7bb5ba5fff72ec56ee99568e7004bab8eb15600297d590f8a8c f73ddc415627c8705d130037335ecf751a3ecaea6536c3eb530c6540f795ae3f 7c9403dcddd8ad01726bce19dc549d92acf7428474116bde39640c8eb7310e02 871ac02f82fb3d4e8707ef3b125a889c684ed08421aeca2a82bd28065be36b5e 7776c1ffd8747a5ee6199974e473709607f8fab009c58fffc8a1d30b49f6a691 8f97c50db3c2c93c00fcc1e8cc809e303e11b60cc1918c147d1c60b858937209 4e5f0ab0d00175759890d21b50b7bfe3cac3befd6a249d25c33fe995b6d30f46 52c1447dd35fc00fe93436d88450636cc3190fd73fa78f2d63dcbbb32d287d20 f73ddc415627c8705d130037335ecf751a3ecaea6536c3eb530c6540f795ae3f a79118c823c63b27a02119aa73279c2e284cdd572b85ee53366f776542dfa9a4 7776c1ffd8747a5ee6199974e473709607f8fab009c58fffc8a1d30b49f6a691
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpq2vrutdpaw7d04klkrlk4l4nlj3m5qc96z82sduhjc9rrugu7y7kq6hx88g
Man, I am back and forth like whip lash on where I stand on this. Spam sucks, Core should be more thoughtful with communication, but I can’t decide if the filters make a lick of difference when they can go direct to miners to get in a block. Maybe there is a way to incentivize people to spam less? Like a social engineering angle?
The crux of this is that Etherium gas-fees became too exorbitant to justify the overwhelming and various “wild west” of spamming, and therefore as Eth fell out of favor, the grifters moved to Bitcoin - spurred by an unrecognized opportunity in the Taproot upgrade. And now, because they drove fees high on the Bitcoin mainchain, they’ve recognized a change to leverage the core Bitcoin node software itself. It’s not about anything but letting Bitcoin be Bitccoin. It’s not about Bitcoin supporters doing anything. But it IS about not allowing the easy grifters to go unchallenged.
30 Tx over 4 months is not something to be concerned about in terms of your mempool accuracy. Smaller miners aren't missing out on a tonne of fees either. This suggests to me that increasing the OP_RETURN is more about some other functionality that it would enable. I do think it's about using the timechain to store data, but probably not monkey JPEGs.
jimmysong's avatar jimmysong
Just did a little sleuthing on the OP_RETURN > 83 bytes from @oomahq 's post (https://x.com/oomahq/status/1916793928025596338). There were 30 such transactions in the ~4 month period: 8 had reasonable fees (< 2x the median for the block) 11 had around double fees 7 had around triple fees 4 had 5x-8x fees 9 were mined by F2Pool (10-11%) 21 were mined by Mara (6-7%) So in general, the OP_RETURN filter means the non-standard transactions were on average paying a good deal more than normal transactions to get into a block. And since only about 18% of the hashing power seems to mine them, they had to wait 5-6x longer to confirm. If the point of filters is to make spamming cumbersome and costly, I'd say that they're doing their job. TX IDs in the first comment so you can look for yourself. image
View quoted note →
Are you sure they paid extra fees in order to get into the block vs it being down to sub-optimal fee estimation?
It's curious that they are getting mined by f2pool. Implies that f2pool accepts TX out of band and not just acceleration. More miners should allow out of band TX to avoid centralizing to Marathon who makes thus easiest with the 2x rate in slipstream.
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 8 months ago
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar BitcoinIsFuture
This is one of the "business model" of the spammers. They want to sell spam on Bitcoin. Frankly, its disgusting. Notice how at this moment the spam is limited to 80 Bytes. They want to remove the limit. Run your Bitcoin Knots to keep Bitcoin free and decentralized! image
View quoted note →
BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 8 months ago
Ralphie's avatar Ralphie
A recap of the OP_RETURN "debate" ------ Core: Filters don't work. Bitcoiners: They obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't need to remove them. Core: We don't have the technical means, so we're removing the limit. Bitcoiners: We gave you the technical means in a PR two years ago, Core rejected it, it was implemented in Knots and it works. Core: We can't stop all spam reliably, so why bother? Bitcoiners: Because life is not black or white, and fastening your seatbelt when driving a car is safer even though some people die in car crashes. Core: Here's 7 transactions that even your precious filters didn't catch. Bitcoiners: Here's 2 million transactions that were caught. Core: You can't censor valid transactions just because you don't like them. They paid a fee! Bitcoiners: There's millions of Nigerian princes contacting people through email every day. These are "valid transactions" too, yet you send those to spam. This is obviously not censorship, so that argument is deceitful and intellectually dishonest. Core: What is spam objectively anyway? Bitcoiners: The receiver - not the sender - gets to decide what's useful to them. You're removing the ability of nodes to decide that, implying you know best. Core: These transactions will end up in blocks anyway, and we can't incentivize profit-seeking miners to go out-of-band. Bitcoiners: It's not your job to incentivize or deter miners. Your job is to work on the Bitcoin client while prioritizing the one thing that makes Bitcoin unique and truly decentralized: nodes. Core: But we want better fee estimation and block propagation. Bitcoiners: So do we, but never at the expense of decentralization and self-sovereignty. Nodes run the show. Core: This is a technical discussion. Stop philosophying and using analogies, you plebs! Bitcoiners: We gave you a technical solution that works, the philosophic rationale and the logical arguments. Stop turning Bitcoin into a shitcoin. Am I missing anything here? ------- If you're seeing bias here, it's because you're too stubborn to admit that one side is clearly more informed, rational and morally calibrated than the other. This is why there's distrust in Core. It's got nothing to do with technical competency and rational discourse. It's just pure and simple political shenanigans, whataboutisms, strawman arguments and in some cases sheer lies. - Hodling like i mean it
View quoted note →
Yes, IIRC Slipstream charges something like 2x for its use. Your data lines up pretty good with that. But that also doesn’t imply anything about standardness materially increasing the cost (F2Pool doesn’t charge extra at all!). More importantly, if there’s any material sustained demand is your claim seriously that miners wouldn’t just run Libre Relay and instead watch their competition make 3% more revenue (a huge increase in profit!)? Or are you claiming they’ll just go out of business and this is good for bitcoin? View quoted note →
n0>1's avatar
n0>1 8 months ago
How can anyone claim that filters don't work? This seems pretty logical to me.
jimmysong's avatar jimmysong
Just did a little sleuthing on the OP_RETURN > 83 bytes from @oomahq 's post (https://x.com/oomahq/status/1916793928025596338). There were 30 such transactions in the ~4 month period: 8 had reasonable fees (< 2x the median for the block) 11 had around double fees 7 had around triple fees 4 had 5x-8x fees 9 were mined by F2Pool (10-11%) 21 were mined by Mara (6-7%) So in general, the OP_RETURN filter means the non-standard transactions were on average paying a good deal more than normal transactions to get into a block. And since only about 18% of the hashing power seems to mine them, they had to wait 5-6x longer to confirm. If the point of filters is to make spamming cumbersome and costly, I'd say that they're doing their job. TX IDs in the first comment so you can look for yourself. image
View quoted note →