-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
4 changed files
with
70 additions
and
14 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2,7 +2,10 @@ | |
| <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> | ||
| <id>2</id> | ||
| <title>Combined summary - Mandatory Inclusion of Old Transactions in Blocks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-29T02:29:02.377623+00:00</updated> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:24:40.775903+00:00</updated> | ||
| <author> | ||
| <name>developer 2024-12-29 16:35:00+00:00</name> | ||
| </author> | ||
| <author> | ||
| <name>Ethan Heilman 2024-12-28 18:48:00+00:00</name> | ||
| </author> | ||
|
|
@@ -18,6 +21,7 @@ | |
| <author> | ||
| <name>developer 2024-12-28 15:54:00+00:00</name> | ||
| </author> | ||
| <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m79b93d3c8f40715707d41cd1b4a2e8158496005e_Mandatory-Inclusion-of-Old-Transactions-in-Blocks.xml" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m38744997198e453612c8f1ea4e6ab316adc29c59_Mandatory-Inclusion-of-Old-Transactions-in-Blocks.xml" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/m126ba2a532db9769c52f3cae2aeaf3bafb3bf937_Mandatory-Inclusion-of-Old-Transactions-in-Blocks.xml" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <link href="bitcoin-dev/Dec_2024/mc0472634b3df4ec00cee5a756ffb1fe6605da00d_Mandatory-Inclusion-of-Old-Transactions-in-Blocks.xml" rel="alternate"/> | ||
|
|
@@ -27,15 +31,15 @@ | |
| <entry> | ||
| <id>2</id> | ||
| <title>Combined summary - Mandatory Inclusion of Old Transactions in Blocks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-29T02:29:02.377686+00:00</updated> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:24:40.775964+00:00</updated> | ||
| <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#mc0ab2bf99af67117f9cb23eca68107d7bccea3e1" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <summary>The discussion centers around a proposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) aimed at addressing issues related to the centralization of Bitcoin mining and the potential for transaction censorship. The proposal suggests that miners be required to include a minimum of 0.1% of transactions from the oldest in the mempool, regardless of their fee amounts. This requirement is intended to prevent miners from excluding transactions based on fees, which could lead to mining centralization and censorship within the network. | ||
| <summary>The recent discussions and proposals regarding the Bitcoin network focus on enhancing its robustness against censorship, centralization, and the challenges in maintaining a decentralized and fair transaction confirmation process. A notable suggestion involves adjusting the Bitcoin protocol to ensure that miners include a small percentage of the oldest transactions in each block they mine, specifically targeting those with potentially lower fees than the current market average. This approach aims to combat mining centralization and mitigate potential regulatory pressures that could lead to transaction censorship or exclusion based on fee size. The proposal specifies that every mined block must contain at least 0.1% of transactions selected from the oldest in the mempool, prioritizing their age over the fees offered. This requirement is designed to discourage miners from omitting transactions for personal gain or due to external pressures, thereby promoting inclusivity and fairness in the transaction validation process. | ||
|
|
||
| Critics of the proposal raise significant technical concerns. One argument highlights that mempools are local to each node, meaning there's no guarantee that all nodes have seen the same transactions. This disparity could result in regular chain splits as nodes reject blocks for not including transactions that a miner may not have been aware of due to their absence in the miner's local mempool. Another critique points out the lack of consensus on unconfirmed transactions and the absence of date information associated with transactions, rendering the proposal technically unsound and ineligible for consideration as a BIP. | ||
| Furthermore, the dialogue within the Bitcoin Development Mailing List emphasizes the technical intricacies and theoretical debates surrounding the management of mempools across different nodes. It highlights the critical challenge of achieving consensus on the visibility and processing order of transactions, given the decentralized nature of blockchain networks. Critics argue that mandating miners to prioritize older transactions could lead to inconsistencies in transaction recognition and potentially cause regular chainsplits, undermining the blockchain's integrity. This critique rests on the foundational principle of blockchain technology, where mining plays an essential role in reaching consensus on transaction history, emphasizing the difficulty of universally agreeing on transaction order without centralized control. | ||
|
|
||
| Despite these criticisms, the proposal outlines several benefits and considerations. It argues that by mandating the inclusion of older, even low-fee transactions, the Bitcoin network can enhance its resistance to censorship, promote greater inclusivity by ensuring confirmation for a broader range of transactions, and maintain decentralization by reducing the potential for centralized control over which transactions are confirmed. The proposal also acknowledges the need for miners to adjust their systems to comply with the new requirements, suggesting an impact on mempool dynamics and the management of mining resources. | ||
| Additionally, feedback on the proposed Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) points out significant technical and philosophical hurdles that need addressing before such ideas can be considered viable. Key issues include the lack of consensus within the community regarding how unconfirmed transactions are handled and the overlooked necessity of associating accurate timestamps with transactions. These concerns reflect the stringent criteria and rigorous scrutiny that any changes to the Bitcoin protocol must undergo to ensure they enhance the network's security, reliability, and decentralization. | ||
|
|
||
| In conclusion, the proposal aims to safeguard the integrity and decentralization of the Bitcoin network by ensuring all transactions, regardless of age or fee, have a fair chance of confirmation. However, the technical feasibility and implications of such a mandate are subjects of debate among developers, indicating that further discussion and possibly a reevaluation of the approach are necessary before moving forward with implementation.</summary> | ||
| <published>2024-12-28T18:48:00+00:00</published> | ||
| In summary, these discussions and proposals shed light on the ongoing efforts to refine and improve the Bitcoin network's resilience against external pressures and internal vulnerabilities. By considering innovative mechanisms to ensure fair transaction processing and prevent censorship, the community continues to explore ways to preserve the decentralized ethos of Bitcoin. However, the path forward requires careful analysis, broad consensus, and a deep understanding of the potential impacts on the network's dynamics and overall security posture.</summary> | ||
| <published>2024-12-29T16:35:00+00:00</published> | ||
| </entry> | ||
| </feed> | ||
24 changes: 24 additions & 0 deletions
24
...d3c8f40715707d41cd1b4a2e8158496005e_Mandatory-Inclusion-of-Old-Transactions-in-Blocks.xml
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
| <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> | ||
| <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> | ||
| <id>1</id> | ||
| <title>Mandatory Inclusion of Old Transactions in Blocks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:24:28.229919+00:00</updated> | ||
| <author> | ||
| <name>developer 2024-12-29 16:35:00+00:00</name> | ||
| </author> | ||
| <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator> | ||
| <entry> | ||
| <id>1</id> | ||
| <title>Mandatory Inclusion of Old Transactions in Blocks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:24:28.229945+00:00</updated> | ||
| <link href="https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/T/#m79b93d3c8f40715707d41cd1b4a2e8158496005e" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <summary>The discussion begins with an exploration of how Bitcoin, despite its robust system, could potentially be influenced by external forces of control and censorship. The proposal aims to enhance the resilience of the Bitcoin structure by utilizing existing mechanisms without introducing new elements. A key focus is on the use of the "nLockTime" feature, which is typically set to zero but has the potential for a novel application. By incorporating the sending timestamp into the "nLockTime" field, it's suggested that transactions can signify their readiness to be included in a block immediately, leveraging legal and existing functionalities of the Bitcoin protocol. | ||
|
|
||
| Delving into the technicalities, the current method for organizing transactions within the mempool—the memory pool where transactions wait before being confirmed—is highlighted. This process relies heavily on a fee rate-based system facilitated by the Boost MultiIndex's indexed_transaction_set data structure. Transactions are prioritized based on the ratio of transaction fees to transaction size, allowing those with higher fee rates to supersede others in the queue for block inclusion. The dynamics of adding and removing transactions from the mempool are controlled through specific functions, such as the TrimToSize function, which manages the mempool's capacity by prioritizing transactions according to their fee rates. | ||
|
|
||
| The proposed intervention introduces a dual sorting mechanism that considers both the transaction fee rate and the "nLockTime". This involves updating the indexed_transaction_set to include a new comparator that balances these two factors. In practice, this would mean adjusting the TrimToSize function to not only prioritize transactions with higher fees but also give precedence to older transactions based on their "nLockTime". This approach aims to ensure that transactions with lower fees but older timestamps have a better chance of being included in a block, thereby reducing the likelihood of transactions stagnating in the mempool due to low fees. | ||
|
|
||
| In conclusion, integrating "nLockTime" based sorting alongside the existing fee rate criteria proposes a more nuanced transaction selection process for the Bitcoin mempool. This methodology seeks to balance efficiency with fairness, giving older transactions a fighting chance for inclusion despite the competitive fee market. Such changes advocate for a cooperative nature within the blockchain ecosystem, challenging the purely competitive narrative often associated with transaction processing.</summary> | ||
| <published>2024-12-29T16:35:00+00:00</published> | ||
| </entry> | ||
| </feed> |
22 changes: 22 additions & 0 deletions
22
static/delvingbitcoin/Dec_2024/3868_Transitory-Soft-Forks-for-Consensus-Cleanup-Forks.xml
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | ||
| <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> | ||
| <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> | ||
| <id>1</id> | ||
| <title>Transitory Soft Forks for Consensus Cleanup Forks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:21:03.254321+00:00</updated> | ||
| <author> | ||
| <name>ariard 2024-12-29 19:47:59.835000+00:00</name> | ||
| </author> | ||
| <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator> | ||
| <entry> | ||
| <id>1</id> | ||
| <title>Transitory Soft Forks for Consensus Cleanup Forks</title> | ||
| <updated>2024-12-30T02:21:03.254356+00:00</updated> | ||
| <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/transitory-soft-forks-for-consensus-cleanup-forks/1333/4" rel="alternate"/> | ||
| <summary>The process of implementing consensus changes in a development environment, particularly for developers advocating for new features or addressing technical debt, presents significant challenges. The requirement that such changes undergo a re-activation after a transitional period could further discourage developers. It's crucial to acknowledge that no matter the effort invested, if a proposed soft fork lacks sufficient robustness, presents numerous trade-offs, fails to gain adequate support from community stakeholders, or faces activation deadlock, developers cannot expect automatic acceptance of their proposals. This situation underscores the absence of guaranteed job security in protocol development. | ||
|
|
||
| One potential advantage of transitory soft forks, especially concerning consensus changes aimed at transaction restriction, is their utility when the full technical rationale remains partially undisclosed for security reasons. For instance, identifying and exploiting DoS vulnerabilities within Bitcoin Script requires a certain level of expertise and discretion in sharing information to prevent misuse. While the ideal scenario would involve complete transparency regarding the rationale behind consensus changes, the lengthy timeframe required for these changes to materialize means that revealing all details upfront could pose risks. Transitory soft forks offer a solution by allowing for the deployment and activation of changes, followed by a full disclosure of technical details, and then a decision on whether to re-activate or permanently implement the changes. | ||
|
|
||
| Moreover, the concept of auto-repeal in the context of transitory soft forks might provide a mechanism to address multiple DoS vulnerabilities over time through a singular, updated mitigation effort. However, there are concerns that this approach could lead to perpetual debates over new mitigations without significantly enhancing full-node robustness. A preferable strategy might be to adopt a UNIX-like approach to consensus change management, emphasizing versioned, modular changes that can be expanded upon over time. This method would facilitate focusing on individual cleanup efforts, each with its own activation sequence, rather than attempting to introduce a comprehensive set of changes simultaneously. Such an approach not only simplifies the activation process but also allows for the consideration of transitional or multi-stage activation protocols where beneficial.</summary> | ||
| <published>2024-12-29T19:47:59.835000+00:00</published> | ||
| </entry> | ||
| </feed> |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters