Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcing Libforesta

[Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev]

Hi leohaf.

>Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the 
>reference implementation or on Floresta?

You mean serve blocks to others? If so, Floresta is a prune-first node, meant 
to be used with only outgoing connections, so no.

>Is it possible to switch from Bitcoin Core to Floresta without causing a new 
>IDB?

Not trivially, I think. The easiest way I could think of is someone handing you 
the position of each leaf in the accumulator, you could reconstruct it locally. 
If the acc have exactly​​ the UTXOs you expected, and is valid, then you just 
prune off all leaves and keep the roots, becoming a bridge node. This is 
lighter that IBD, but still a bit costly, I guess.

>Is Floresta backward compatible with Bitcoin Core's RPC commands?

I'm trying to get the most important rpcs closer to core. I won't promisse all 
of them, but ones used in the watch-only wallet and pulling general chain data 
will have a very close interface.


De: leo...@orangepill.ovh 
Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2023 11:33
Para: Davidson Souza ; Bitcoin Protocol 
Discussion 
Assunto: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcing Libforesta

Hi, delighted to see an implementation of Utreexo.

I will just have a few questions about your implementation.

1) Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the 
reference implementation or on Floresta?

2) Is it possible to switch from Bitcoin Core to Floresta without causing a new 
IDB?

3) Is Floresta backward compatible with Bitcoin Core's RPC commands?

Le 31 juil. 2023 à 19:47, Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev 
 a écrit :

Hi, list. My name is Davidson, and I’m thrilled to share `libfloresta` with the 
Bitcoin devs mailing list!

This is a derivate of a project I’ve been developing for a few months, called 
`Floresta` (Portuguese for forest). An Utreexo powered, Fully-Validating 
Bitcoin Full node with integrated watch-only wallet and Electrum Server, meant 
to be a compact, simple, and ready to use full node for end users.

After some feedbacks and thoughts, I’ve decided to turn it into a series of 
reusable libs that can be used in other applications in a straightforward way. 
The main goal here is low-power devices, like SBC and smartphones, but can be 
used in any environment. To achieve that, I’m writing the main logic in Rust 
and will generate bindings to the original code and compiling to WASM, allowing 
it to run virtually anywhere.

The project is in an early stage, but I’m using it on signet for a while now 
with no problems. Mainnet support is almost ready, but we need to solve some 
performance issues with bridge nodes and set some up, so you can have utreexo 
peers.

The project is available on [my 
GitHub](https://github.com/Davidson-Souza/Floresta) and I wrote an initial 
[blogpost](https://blog.dlsouza.lol/2023/07/07/libfloresta.html) explaining how 
to use it (in Rust). I’ll write more as the project matures, and I get it 
running on other platforms. Any feedback is welcome!

## Consensus

I know that alternative implementations is a spicy subject in Bitcoin land, but 
this project **does not** reimplement the Bitcoin Consensus machine from 
scratch. I’m using `libbitcoinconsenus` and plan to use the full 
`libbitcoinkernel` in the future. While this doesn’t guarantee consistency, it 
minimizes misimplementations leading to splits.

I’m also making an extra effort into cross-test against Bitcoin Core to find 
any inconsistencies before it causes any trouble.

## Acknowledges

A special thanks to [Vinteum](https://vinteum.org/) for supporting my work with 
utreexo and Floresta.

Best regards,
Davidson Souza.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".

[Léo via bitcoin-dev]

xfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
>> >> > - if this is not sufficient then please email supp...@coinspaid.com 
>> >> > <mailto:supp...@coinspaid.com>
>> >> and ask
>> >> > to be connected to Max or someone from the team who can confirm
>> >> Conspaid is
>> >> > clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to do a call, I can
>> >> check
>> >> > again now and see if this is still the case and connect you.
>> >> >
>> >> > That on its own is enough of a sample to validate our statistics.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you just give me an example of some merchants using Coinspaid,
>> >> and
>> >> another example using Coinpayments, who rely on unconfirmed transactions?
>> >> If
>> >> those merchants actually exist it should be very easy to give me some
>> >> names of
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >> Without actual concrete examples for everyone to see for themselves, why
>> >> should
>> >> we believe you?
>> >>
>> >> > I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and they offered to email
>> >> pro
>> >> > @ changelly.com <http://changelly.com/> and they will be able to 
>> >> > confirm GAP600 as a service
>> >>
>> >> Emailed; waiting on a reply.
>> >>
>> >> > provider. Also please send me the 1 trx hash you tested and I can see
>> >> if it
>> >> > was queried to our system and if so offer some info as to why it wasnt
>> >> > approved. Also if you can elaborate how you integrated with Changelly -
>> >> I
>> >> > can check with them if that area is not integrated with GAP600.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you just tell me exactly what service Changelly offers that
>> >> relies on
>> >> unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would meet GAP600's
>> >> risk
>> >> criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily do test
>> >> transactions
>> >> if you told us what we can actually test. If your service actually works,
>> >> then
>> >> you can safely provide that information.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to give you any exact tx hashes of transactions I've already
>> >> done, as I don't want to cause any problems for the owners of the
>> >> accounts I
>> >> borrowed for testing. Given your lack of honesty so far I have every
>> >> reason to
>> >> believe they might be retalliated against in some way.
>> >>
>> >> > As the architect of such a major change to the status of 0-conf
>> >> > transactions I would think you would welcome the opportunity to speak to
>> >> > business and users who actual activities will be impacted by full RBF
>> >> > becoming dominant.
>> >>
>> >> Funny how you say this, without actually giving any concrete examples of
>> >> businesses that will be affected. Who exactly are these businesses?
>> >> Payment
>> >> processors obviously don't count.
>> >>
>> >> > Are you able to provide the same i.e emails and contacts of people at
>> >> > the mining pools who can confirm they have adopted FULL RBF ?
>> >>
>> >> I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that they and their
>> >> employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously I'm not going to
>> >> provide you with any private contact information I have. There's no need
>> >> to
>> >> expose them to further harassment.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually offered an unconfirmed transaction guarantee service,
>> >> with real
>> >> customers getting an actual benefit, you'd be doing test transactions
>> >> frequently and would already have a very good idea of what pools do
>> >> full-rbf.
>> >> Why don't you already have this data?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> https://petertodd.org <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 
>> >> <http://petertodd.org/>
>> >>
>> >
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html>
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +
>> From: Peter Todd mailto:p...@petertodd.org>>
>> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on
>> OP_Return   outputs
>> Message-ID: > <mailto:zmussbkwqvxo9...@petertodd.org>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> 
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130
>> 
>> Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my 
>> intent
>> to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output /
>> tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
>> removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up additional
>> transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any
>> relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important
>> concern. But consider this email your notice.
>> 
>> At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard
>> transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these pinning
>> vectors may in fact exist already.
>> 
>> 
>> # References
>> 
>> 1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/
>> 
>> -- 
>> https://petertodd.org <https://petertodd.org/> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 
>> <http://petertodd.org/>
>> -- next part --
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: signature.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-signature
>> Size: 833 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL: 
>> <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig>
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> ___
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 6
>> **
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcing Libforesta

[Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev]

HI Bastiaan van den Berg, thanks for your reply.

>the utreexo bridge peers are the only real bitcoin nodes

I think this is not correct. Floresta is a Compact State Node (CSN), it keeps 
only the bare minimum to validate blocks and transactions, but it still 
performs everything a bridge or a regular node does. The difference being in 
the storage and I/O requirements. In fact, CSNs are the reason utreexo is 
relevant. In a bridge node, you need more​​ resources than a regular node. As 
stated in the post, I'm using Core's set of shared libs to implement the 
consensus parts, and we validate the chain from genesis as usual.

>you cant use -only- libfloresta to be a node

You can, bridge nodes are just peers that can prove things. You could, in 
theory, eliminate them. But this is a long-term thing. In fact, I have built 
Floresta, a drop-in replacement to a node + EPS. You just spin it up and after 
IBD, an electrum server is provided to connect your wallets.

>you cant mine with it

Technically, you can, you just have to build a block dispatcher. But I think 
this is out-of-scope for what I'm looking at. My main target is end-users, that 
don't want or can't use a node because of the elevated hardware requirements, 
even for pruned ones.

>you cant do normal tx with it

Yes, you can't build the tx, but the goal is not doing this. The goal is 
integrating the node and (if needed) the watch-only wallet in a wallet that 
implements this procedures. So imagine a BDK-based wallet with libfloresta as 
the chain backend, LDK makes the UTXO management and tx build/sign, libfloresta 
broadcasts with the p2p network, no ttp involved.
I'm using Floresta as my Electrum server for Electrum and Sparrow, for testing 
some things on signet, and works just fine!

>you are targetting webbrowsers ( , i'm really confused about the why of 
>this)

I think I could have made the explanation more clear. The goal is creating a 
fully validating node with a small footprint, such that, using things like 
assume-utxo or zero-sync, even browsers and smartphones can run an actual 
node.​​ Browsers are just one possible target, even big computers would benefit 
from a low-footprint node.

Hope this helps to clarify what this project is. If you have more questions, 
please let me know.

De: bitcoin-dev  em nome de 
Bastiaan van den Berg via bitcoin-dev 
Enviado: terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2023 05:32
Para: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 
Assunto: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcing Libforesta

Am i correct in the following interpretations?

- the utreexo bridge peers are the only real bitcoin nodes
- you cant use -only- libfloresta to be a node , you cant mine with it, you 
cant do normal tx with it
- you are targetting webbrowsers ( , i'm really confused about the why of 
this)

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:11 PM Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
 wrote:

Hi, list. My name is Davidson, and I’m thrilled to share `libfloresta` with the 
Bitcoin devs mailing list!

This is a derivate of a project I’ve been developing for a few months, called 
`Floresta` (Portuguese for forest). An Utreexo powered, Fully-Validating 
Bitcoin Full node with integrated watch-only wallet and Electrum Server, meant 
to be a compact, simple, and ready to use full node for end users.

After some feedbacks and thoughts, I’ve decided to turn it into a series of 
reusable libs that can be used in other applications in a straightforward way. 
The main goal here is low-power devices, like SBC and smartphones, but can be 
used in any environment. To achieve that, I’m writing the main logic in Rust 
and will generate bindings to the original code and compiling to WASM, allowing 
it to run virtually anywhere.


The project is in an early stage, but I’m using it on signet for a while now 
with no problems. Mainnet support is almost ready, but we need to solve some 
performance issues with bridge nodes and set some up, so you can have utreexo 
peers.


The project is available on [my 
GitHub](https://github.com/Davidson-Souza/Floresta) and I wrote an initial 
[blogpost](https://blog.dlsouza.lol/2023/07/07/libfloresta.html) explaining how 
to use it (in Rust). I’ll write more as the project matures, and I get it 
running on other platforms. Any feedback is welcome!


## Consensus


I know that alternative implementations is a spicy subject in Bitcoin land, but 
this project **does not** reimplement the Bitcoin Consensus machine from 
scratch. I’m using `libbitcoinconsenus` and plan to use the full 
`libbitcoinkernel` in the future. While this doesn’t guarantee consistency, it 
minimizes misimplementations leading to splits.


I’m also making an extra effort into cross-test against Bitcoin Core to find 
any inconsistencies before it causes any trouble.


## Acknowledges


A special thanks to [Vinteum](https://vinteum.org/) for supporting my work with 
utreexo and Floresta.

Best regards,
Davidson Souza.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcing Libforesta

[Léo via bitcoin-dev]

Hi, delighted to see an implementation of Utreexo.

I will just have a few questions about your implementation.

1) Is this implementation able to start other nodes whether they are on the 
reference implementation or on Floresta?

2) Is it possible to switch from Bitcoin Core to Floresta without causing a new 
IDB?

3) Is Floresta backward compatible with Bitcoin Core's RPC commands?

> Le 31 juil. 2023 à 19:47, Davidson Souza via bitcoin-dev 
>  a écrit :
> 
> Hi, list. My name is Davidson, and I’m thrilled to share `libfloresta` with 
> the Bitcoin devs mailing list!
> 
> This is a derivate of a project I’ve been developing for a few months, called 
> `Floresta` (Portuguese for forest). An Utreexo powered, Fully-Validating 
> Bitcoin Full node with integrated watch-only wallet and Electrum Server, 
> meant to be a compact, simple, and ready to use full node for end users. 
> 
> After some feedbacks and thoughts, I’ve decided to turn it into a series of 
> reusable libs that can be used in other applications in a straightforward 
> way. The main goal here is low-power devices, like SBC and smartphones, but 
> can be used in any environment. To achieve that, I’m writing the main logic 
> in Rust and will generate bindings to the original code and compiling to 
> WASM, allowing it to run virtually anywhere.
> 
> The project is in an early stage, but I’m using it on signet for a while now 
> with no problems. Mainnet support is almost ready, but we need to solve some 
> performance issues with bridge nodes and set some up, so you can have utreexo 
> peers.
> 
> The project is available on [my 
> GitHub](https://github.com/Davidson-Souza/Floresta) and I wrote an initial 
> [blogpost](https://blog.dlsouza.lol/2023/07/07/libfloresta.html) explaining 
> how to use it (in Rust). I’ll write more as the project matures, and I get it 
> running on other platforms. Any feedback is welcome!
> 
> ## Consensus
> 
> I know that alternative implementations is a spicy subject in Bitcoin land, 
> but this project **does not** reimplement the Bitcoin Consensus machine from 
> scratch. I’m using `libbitcoinconsenus` and plan to use the full 
> `libbitcoinkernel` in the future. While this doesn’t guarantee consistency, 
> it minimizes misimplementations leading to splits.
> 
> I’m also making an extra effort into cross-test against Bitcoin Core to find 
> any inconsistencies before it causes any trouble.
> 
> ## Acknowledges
> 
> A special thanks to [Vinteum](https://vinteum.org/) for supporting my work 
> with utreexo and Floresta.
> 
> Best regards,
> Davidson Souza.
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
> 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".

[GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev]

y don't you just tell me exactly what service Changelly offers that
> >> relies on
> >> unconfirmed transactions, and what characteristics would meet GAP600's
> >> risk
> >> criteria? I and others on this mailing list could easily do test
> >> transactions
> >> if you told us what we can actually test. If your service actually
> works,
> >> then
> >> you can safely provide that information.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to give you any exact tx hashes of transactions I've
> already
> >> done, as I don't want to cause any problems for the owners of the
> >> accounts I
> >> borrowed for testing. Given your lack of honesty so far I have every
> >> reason to
> >> believe they might be retalliated against in some way.
> >>
> >> > As the architect of such a major change to the status of 0-conf
> >> > transactions I would think you would welcome the opportunity to speak
> to
> >> > business and users who actual activities will be impacted by full RBF
> >> > becoming dominant.
> >>
> >> Funny how you say this, without actually giving any concrete examples of
> >> businesses that will be affected. Who exactly are these businesses?
> >> Payment
> >> processors obviously don't count.
> >>
> >> > Are you able to provide the same i.e emails and contacts of people at
> >> > the mining pools who can confirm they have adopted FULL RBF ?
> >>
> >> I've already had multiple mining pools complain to me that they and
> their
> >> employees have been harassed over full-rbf, so obviously I'm not going
> to
> >> provide you with any private contact information I have. There's no need
> >> to
> >> expose them to further harassment.
> >>
> >> If you actually offered an unconfirmed transaction guarantee service,
> >> with real
> >> customers getting an actual benefit, you'd be doing test transactions
> >> frequently and would already have a very good idea of what pools do
> >> full-rbf.
> >> Why don't you already have this data?
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> >>
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230802/06762493/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:42:40 +
> From: Peter Todd 
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on
> OP_Return   outputs
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130
>
> Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my
> intent
> to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output
> /
> tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
> removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up
> additional
> transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any
> relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important
> concern. But consider this email your notice.
>
> At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard
> transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these
> pinning
> vectors may in fact exist already.
>
>
> # References
>
> 1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230803/33786fbc/attachment.sig
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> --
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 6
> **
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions"

[Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev]

Storage is not and never has been the trouble with block sizes. Please, 
before participating in discussions of this topic, at least get a basic 
understanding of it. Here's a talk I did a few years ago to get you 
started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNEQS80-h4&t=7s


Luke


On 8/2/23 07:07, GamedevAlice via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> If the rate of growth of the blockchain is too high, Ordinals aren't the
> cause, it's rather that the theoretical limit of the amount of 
storage that
> can be added per block isn't sufficiently limited. (Whether they are 
used

> to produce Ordinals or something else)


True, the real question is whether the storage is in fact sufficiently 
limited. And I believe the answer to be 'yes'.


Why? Consider a worst case scenario using the maximum block size of 
4MB and a block time of 10min, that's a growth of 210.24GB per year. 
Some of that can be pruned, but let's just assume that you don't want 
to. And currently the entire blockchain is roughly 500GB.


Now that looks like a lot of growth potential based on where we are at 
now. However, with the current cost of hardware, you can get a 5 TB 
hard drive for less than $150. That will last you 21 years before you 
run out of space. That's less than $0.02 per day.


That is a worst case scenario.

Consider that since cost of hardware drops over time, it will become 
less of a burden over time.


Also, keep in mind there are efforts to optimize how much of that 
actually needs to be stored by nodes. For example, the aforementioned 
topic announcing Floresta which seems to be a node implementation that 
uses utreexo to allow nodes to run without needing to maintain the 
full UTXO set. Other initiatives exist as well.


There is definitely a lot of optimization potential for drastically 
reducing how much space is actually needed by individual nodes.




On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, 5:40 AM , 
 wrote:


Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-dev-ow...@lists.linuxfoundation.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default (Peter Todd)
   2. Re: Concern about "Inscriptions". (ashneverdawn)
      (Keagan McClelland)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 01:28:06 +
From: Peter Todd 
To: Daniel Lipshitz 
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
        
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:27:24AM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> Your research is not thorough and reaches an incorrect conclusion.
>
> As stated many times - we service payment processors and some
merchants
> directly  - Coinspaid services multiple merchants and process a
> significant amount of BTC they are a well known and active in
the space -
> as I provided back in December 2022 a email from Max the CEO of
Coinspaid
> confirming their use of 0-conf as well as providing there
cluster addresses
> to validate there deposit flows see here again -
>

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
> - if this is not sufficient then please email
supp...@coinspaid.com and ask
> to be connected to Max or someone from the team who can confirm
Conspaid is
> clients of GAP600. Max also at the time was open to do a call, I
can check
> again now and see if this is still the case and connect you.
>
> That on its own is enough of a sample to validate our statistics.

Why don't you just give me an example of some merchants using
Coinspaid, and
another example using Coinpayments, who rely on unconfirmed
transactions? If
those merchants actually exist it should be very easy to give me
some names of
them.

Without actual concrete examples for everyone to see for
themselves, why should
we believe you?

> I have also spoken to Changelly earlier today and they offered
to email pro
> @ changelly.com  and they will be able to
confirm GAP600 as a service

Emailed; waiting on a reply.

> provider. Also please send me the 1 trx hash you tested and I
can see if it
> was queried to our system and if so offer some info as to why it
wasnt
> approved. Also if you can elaborate how you integrated with
Changelly - I
> can check with them if that ar

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to enable Full-RBF by default

[Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:38:21PM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> Your assessment of my dishonesty is based on your assumption of how I
> should be running GAP600, your assumptions are baseless and lack commercial
> experience and likewise your conclusions are false.
> 
> I have provided already back in December clear access to clarify opposite
> our clients corroborated with easily verifiable trxs activity of a major
> client of ours. This is more than enough to corroborate our statistics.

Claims of "trxs activity" are completely meaningless when you can't demonstrate
that a single client of yours actually relies on unconfirmed transaction
acceptance.

> As far as validating real RBF adoption I have offered a clear option here
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1661960440
> something like this or similar would offer a clear assessment of adoption.
> Since you are not able to provide documents or public emails of hashing
> pools confirming there adoption of Full RBF.

Repeating your github comment here for purposes of reply:

> A clear and open method to research the adoption of full RBF would look 
> something like this and could easily be done -
>
> Create 20 trxs (larger numbers better) in between every block and after 30 
> seconds try replace them.
> Run this test for at least a few hours preferably more than 24 hours or even 
> a few days.
> See results of how many were replaced.
> Ignore trx results if trx are included in blocks before replace trxs are 
> published.
> Have other Bitcoin Core developers independently implement and review the 
> test results

I am baffled at the fact that you claim GAP600 offers a "real-time risk
engine"(1) guaranteeing "instant deposits & payments"(1), yet you are not
already testing full-rbf adoption yourself in this manner. If your business was
in fact real, it'd be essential to keep track of double spend success rates.

> Based on a test like this or something similar it would be reliable to get to 
> an assessment of the adoption of full RBF.

As you should know, my OpenTimestamps calendars,
https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/ and
https://bob.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/, have been creating full-rbf
double spends multiple times a day since last year. Those calendars have
created literally thousands of full-rbf replacements, providing ample test
data.

If your business was real - if you actually have a "real time risk engine" that
monitors mempools - you'd already know this. You'd also know about the
successful full-rbf replacements that Alice got mined today:

291e1abf146209839f8910cf9ede6979bb12e6efa6d73f52ca7ae0476eafa6a5 - AntPool
e7ea70c2e366ef035ed0428c704c55e5331211200c6e0298eb85a574812aa010 - Binance Pool
aa9e034283cc50a3cb042284833607bc49dea275854004a3757acf776e679a6b - Poolin
ae74600b66ccf9d8ee8d62e5881581b5baff7e47ea51c3e4d1fee1612504 - AntPool

Those four transactions are each part of a chain of replacements, and every
chain started with a transaction paying well above the minimum relay fee in
present mempool conditions. Tell me, how do you think those full-rbf
replacements get mined?


On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 06:29:54PM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> For clarity purposes.
> 
>1. Our research is based on monitoring main net transactions and network
>activity - as too is our risk engine. We do not engage in specific hashing
>pool assessments or research.

So if you are "monitoring main net transactions and network activity", why are
you not already aware of the many full-rbf replacements getting mined every
day?

>2. It is not easily possible or comfortable to engage with our clients
>to offer up their client names and applications - the competition is fierce
>and like other industries it is not an acceptable approach to ask.
>3. The information offered by Coinpaid and posted on this list, provides
>root addresses which using tools like Chainanlysis, or
>similar service providers can confirm these addresses are associated with
>Coinspaid. This can validate a significant amount of our traffic.

This reminds me of how Craig Wright appears to have picked a bunch of bitcoin
addresses off of a "rich list" and fraudulently claimed those addresses to be
his.

Anyone can create a list of addresses from blockchain data. That is not proof
that any actual merchant relies on unconfirmed transactions. To prove that you
need to provide the names of those merchant(s), so others can actually verify
that they provides things of value in exchange for an unconfirmed transaction.

>4. Based on the information provided it will be very possible to reach
>out to Max at Coinpaid - and will be able to confirm GAP600 use with
>Coinspaid. This is in addition to me posting an email from Max back in Dec
>2022 to this list confirming all of this information.

Again, Coinspaid is a merchant processor. Unless you or they actually provide
details on real merchants making use of your 

[bitcoin-dev] Pull-req to remove the arbitrary limits on OP_Return outputs

[Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130

Sjors Provoost suggested that I email this mailing list as notice of my intent
to get a pull-req merged that would remove the arbitrary 80-byte, 1 output /
tx, standardness restrictions on OP_Return outputs. His rationale was that
removing these standardness restrictions could potentially open up additional
transaction pinning(1) vectors. Since this is a potential problem with any
relaxation of standardness rules, I don't consider this to be an important
concern. But consider this email your notice.

At least some miners appear to be mining non-bitcoin-core-standard
transactions. So with respect to the hash power of those miners these pinning
vectors may in fact exist already.


# References

1) https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev