Max block size should also consider the size of UTXO set

[jl2012]

This is obsolete. See my new proposal below: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153401.msg11329252#msg11329252

We should encourage "good transactions", which are: 1. small in size, 2. with less outputs, 3. with practically spendable outputs

Targets 2, 3 are important for maintaining a reasonable size of UTXO set.

The current block size restriction, however, considers only the target 1. Miners will accept polluting transactions (with lots of practically unspendable outputs) as long as enough fee is paid. However, every full nodes has to maintain the inflated UTXO set.

If the block size limit is to be increased, it could be determined by more factors, not just the absolute size.

I have a rough idea:

Let's denote:

S₀, S₁,.....,S_n: Amount of Satoshis of the output 0, 1 ..... n.
Size: size of the transaction in kB.

The adjusted transaction size is defined as:

Size * (1/(log₂S₀+1)+1/(log₂S₁+1)+..+1/(log₂S_n+1))

The value of 1/(log₂S_n+1) increases exponentially as the output size decreases. The value is 1 for 1 satoshi, 0.5 for 2 satoshi, 0.13 for 1 uBTC, 0.057 for 1mBTC, and 0.036 for 1 BTC.  

The adjusted block size is defined as the sum of adjusted transaction size.

If the real block size is < 1MB, the adjusted block size is not consider. If the real block size is > 1MB, the adjusted block size must be smaller than a certain constant.

Many problems are solved with a system like this:

1. Block size is still scare. If it is < 1MB, it is equivalent to current limit. If it is > 1MB, "good transactions" are prioritised
2. Miners will have an incentive to exclude dust outputs, because that will increase the adjusted block size
3. Miners will love transactions with less outputs, so the UTXO set could be reduced.
4. People trying to send dust outputs and/or inflate UTXO set have to pay more miner fee to compensate for their pollution
5. The block size, which costs bandwidth and disk space, is still accounted.

Since there must be a hard fork when lifting the max block size, adding extra rules like these won't make the change more complicated.

[1714566883]

1714566883

[justusranvier]

We should

Start a mining pool. You can implement any rule you want with regards to which transactions get included and which do not. Convince other miners that your rules are the best and they will vote with their hashing power.

[jl2012]

We should

Start a mining pool. You can implement any rule you want with regards to which transactions get included and which do not. Convince other miners that your rules are the best and they will vote with their hashing power.

No, this is a hard fork.

[justusranvier]

No, this is a hard fork.

Granted that your block still needs to be valid for the rest of the network to accept it.

But your goal of "encouraging good transactions" does not require any changes to the protocol. You can reject any non-good transactions in your pool and just ask other miners to support you by mining in your pool.

Isn't that a much better solution than putting mandatory fee selection rules in the protocol?

[markm]

Oh come now, surely it is obvious that other people not being forced to obey "the" rules is doubleplus-ungood?

-MarkM-

[jl2012]

No, this is a hard fork.

Granted that your block still needs to be valid for the rest of the network to accept it.

But your goal of "encouraging good transactions" does not require any changes to the protocol. You can reject any non-good transactions in your pool and just ask other miners to support you by mining in your pool.

Isn't that a much better solution than putting mandatory fee selection rules in the protocol?

This is actually a response to the other thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153133.0

Using this proposal, we can increase the max block size without bloating the UTXO set

[d'aniel]

Using this proposal, we can increase the max block size without bloating the UTXO set

This.

The argument that a block size limit is necessary to prevent excessive centralization applies equally well to a limit on the per block expansion of the utxo set.  So I think this justifies the creation of such a limit, if a block size limit is to be maintained.

Also, I don't see why we would need to have a single metric to describe usage of the two scarce resources, block space and utxo set space.  Wouldn't it be simpler to just have separate limits for both?  They consume distinct physical resources - bandwidth and storage, respectively - and so these parameters should be somewhat orthogonal.

[jl2012]

Using this proposal, we can increase the max block size without bloating the UTXO set

This.

The argument that a block size limit is necessary to prevent excessive centralization applies equally well to a limit on the per block expansion of the utxo set.  So I think this justifies the creation of such a limit, if a block size limit is to be maintained.

Also, I don't see why we would need to have a single metric to describe usage of the two scarce resources, block space and utxo set space.  Wouldn't it be simpler to just have separate limits for both?  They consume distinct physical resources - bandwidth and storage, respectively - and so these parameters should be somewhat orthogonal.

Agreed.

We may have a UTXO index, which is the total number of outputs in a block minus the total number of inputs in a block, and have a hard limit for it

[Ari]

There was a thread on bitcoin-development about this too...

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CABOyFfrPTYeq-g5tgte2HWfvBiBcRLw_Bvyk_X2hXMWVoW3dgQ%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development

[solex]

...
If the real block size is < 1MB, the adjusted block size is not consider. If the real block size is > 1MB, the adjusted block size must be smaller than a certain constant.

Many problems are solved with a system like this:

1. Block size is still scare. If it is < 1MB, it is equivalent to current limit. If it is > 1MB, "good transactions" are prioritised
2. Miners will have an incentive to exclude dust outputs, because that will increase the adjusted block size
3. Miners will love transactions with less outputs, so the UTXO set could be reduced.
4. People trying to send dust outputs and/or inflate UTXO set have to pay more miner fee to compensate for their pollution
5. The block size, which costs bandwidth and disk space, is still accounted.

Since there must be a hard fork when lifting the max block size, adding extra rules like these won't make the change more complicated.

Apologies for necro-ing this thread, but the OP does seem particularly relevant to Gavin's concerns about UTXO bloat: http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

and Gregory's recent post:

Another related point which has been tendered before but seems to have
been ignored is that changing how the size limit is computed can help
better align incentives and thus reduce risk.  E.g. a major cost to the
network is the UTXO impact of transactions, but since the limit is blind
to UTXO impact a miner would gain less income if substantially factoring
UTXO impact into its fee calculations; and without fee impact users have
little reason to optimize their UTXO behavior.   This can be corrected
by augmenting the "size" used for limit calculations.   An example would
be tx_size = MAX( real_size >> 1,  real_size + 4*utxo_created_size -
3*utxo_consumed_size).   The reason for the MAX is so that a block
which cleaned a bunch of big UTXO could not break software by being
super large, the utxo_consumed basically lets you credit your fees by
cleaning the utxo set; but since you get less credit than you cost the
pressure should be downward but not hugely so. The 1/2, 4, 3 I regard
as parameters which I don't have very strong opinions on which could be
set based on observations in the network today (e.g. adjusted so that a
normal cleaning transaction can hit the minimum size).

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34097489/

Aligning the demand for larger blocks with pressure to maintain a cleaner UTXO set, may be more constructive, beneficial long-term, and a more immediate priority than concerns about further pressure for the fees market.

[gmaxwell]

Yea, this has been in several different threads before (I'm not even sure if I was aware of this one). It seems obvious and correct to account for UTXO impact; though the exact parameters seem less clear (though almost any would be workable; though I'd rather not go implement a separate fixed point log for this.)

It also hasn't gone anywhere though these things are trivial to implement; because basically they're more or less tolerable to go without them at the current limits (though they'd be nice; utxo is still growing at a somewhat alarming rate; and the dust limits are kinda ugly hacks); and most of the push for larger blocks starts with the premise that there isn't major risk or trade-off worth addressing, and by that metric additional complexity doesn't sound justified-- and indeed, almost anything is more complex than "change a 1 to a 20".

I don't like the framing "Miners will have an incentive to exclude dust" ... rather, transactions have a cost, the change makes the economic cost better aligned with the true costs, and the change means transactions will have to pay in proportion to their costs-- in my suggestion it's set so that creating outputs effectively prepays much of the cost of spending them;  but there is no discrimination against "dust", miners make no judgement-- there is a cost and it's up to the users to justify it.

I don't like having txout values in the terms because that has an implicit scaling factor between the value of coins and the value of bytes, and because the value is actually unrelated to the costs to the network. My formula works with bytes all around, though there is some scaling because signatures tend to be much bigger than outputs and limits because I'm trying to avoid some edge cases like miners bloating the utxo set with cheaply spendable outputs in order to store-and-forward their blocksize.

[jl2012]

I wrote this long time ago when I knew Bitcoin not very well. But I always think this has to be done if we increase the max block size.

I would like to rewrite it as follow:

We will formally define "utxoSize", which is

txid (32 bytes) + txoIndex (varInt) + scriptPubKey length (varInt) + scriptPubKey (? bytes) + value (8 byte) + coinbase (1 byte) + coinbase block height (0 or 4 bytes)

txid is the txid of the utxo
txoIndex is the index of the utxo in the tx, recorded as varInt
scriptPubKey length is the length of the scriptPubKey of the utxo, a varInt
scriptPubKey is the scriptPubKey of the utxo
value is the utxo value in Satoshis
coinbase is an indicator to show whether the utxo is a coinbase reward
if it is a coinbase reward, 4 more bytes is needed to record the block height

I think these are the minimal amount of data needed to store utxo. the utxo set needs to show whether an utxo is from coinbase due to the 100-block rule.

However, if the utxo contains ANY one of the invalid OP_CODE, e.g. OP_RETURN, OP_VERIF, OP_CAT which guarantees the script to fail, the utxoSize is set to zero.

For each block, we need to calculate the net change in UTXO size, which is

Code:

utxoDiff = (total utxoSize of new UTXOs) - (total utxoSize of spent UTXOs)

With utxoDiff, we may have a soft-fork rule of one of the followings:

• 1. Put a hardcoded cap to utxoDiff for each block. Therefore, we will be sure that the UTXO set won't grow too fast; or
• 2. If a block has a small (or even negative) utxoDiff, a higher MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is allowed

That will encourage miners to accept txs with small or negative utxoDiff, which will keep the UTXO set small.

[TierNolan]

I think these are the minimal amount of data needed to store utxo. the utxo set needs to show whether an utxo is from coinbase due to the 100-block rule.

An UTXO only really needs to contain a hash of the output point (and height).  The spending transaction should include all the information required, when spending.

That saves storing the information in RAM, i.e. the owner of the transaction stores the info.

It wouldn't even be required to store the entire hash.  A node could salt the hashes and collisions would be very unlikely.

The database would be a map of

Hash(key_salt | txid | n) maps to Hash(value_salt | OutPoint | height | ... )

If each hash was reduced to the lower 8 bytes and there were 10 million in the UTXO set, the odds of a collision is still tiny (around 1 in 180,000).

To falsely spend an UTXO, an attacker would need 2 ^ 63 attempts, but that requires knowning the target node's value_salt.

Using that system, the entire UTXO set would be 16 bytes per entry for the key and value.

[jl2012]

I think these are the minimal amount of data needed to store utxo. the utxo set needs to show whether an utxo is from coinbase due to the 100-block rule.

An UTXO only really needs to contain a hash of the output point (and height).  The spending transaction should include all the information required, when spending.

How about the scriptPubKey and value of the utxo? These are not part of the spending tx.

[TierNolan]

How about the scriptPubKey and value of the utxo? These are not part of the spending tx.

I meant that the info isn't strictly needed in the UTXO database (in general).  An extended transaction format could include the scriptPubKey and the value (and also the height, for coinbase spends).

This moves the cost of storing that info from RAM in every node to whoever wants to spend the transaction.  P2SH outputs already effectively do this (well not the value), but there is no reason that all transactions couldn't support it.  

During the transitiion, tx messages could be converted into etx messages by full nodes.  Eventually, tx messages could be depreciated.  Wallet software would have to manage the info for any coins held in its wallet.

[jl2012]

How about the scriptPubKey and value of the utxo? These are not part of the spending tx.

I meant that the info isn't strictly needed in the UTXO database (in general).  An extended transaction format could include the scriptPubKey and the value (and also the height, for coinbase spends).

This moves the cost of storing that info from RAM in every node to whoever wants to spend the transaction.  P2SH outputs already effectively do this (well not the value), but there is no reason that all transactions couldn't support it.  

During the transitiion, tx messages could be converted into etx messages by full nodes.  Eventually, tx messages could be depreciated.  Wallet software would have to manage the info for any coins held in its wallet.

ok, but I don't understand the meaning of your: Hash(key_salt | txid | n) maps to Hash(value_salt | OutPoint | height | ... )

Why don't just use an index of Hash(salt|txid|n|height|scriptPubKey|value)? The etx message will provide all these information (expect the salt which is a secret of the node).

Also, the etx message won't need to provide scriptPubKey if it is a standard one like P2PK, P2PKH or P2SH. Just use a byte to indicate the type is enough.

[TierNolan]

ok, but I don't understand the meaning of your: Hash(key_salt | txid | n) maps to Hash(value_salt | OutPoint | height | ... )

Why don't just use an index of Hash(salt|txid|n|height|scriptPubKey|value)? The etx message will provide all these information (expect the salt which is a secret of the node).

I was thinking you need to be able to look it up from the database, so need (txid | n) to be a key.  However, you are right a hash set is sufficient, if the etx has all the required additional info.

This drops things to 8 bytes per UTXO output for serialization and slightly more due to hashset overhead for RAM.

There could be an eblock too.  This allows nearly complete block verification without needing any info outside the eblock.  The only check is that the UTXOs all actually exist.

I think this would help with the consensus library.  You pass it an eblock message and it returns a list of UTXOs that must exist for the block to be valid and also a list of new UTXO hashes.

This means that (almost) all the complexity of block verification (script and crypt) is handled internally in the library.  The only thing that the outside client needs to be is manage the UTXO digests.

It might be better to use hash(salt | hash(<info>)), so that the salting can be done outside the consensus library.  The consensus library would use 32 byte digests.

Also, the etx message won't need to provide scriptPubKey if it is a standard one like P2PK, P2PKH or P2SH. Just use a byte to indicate the type is enough.

It still needs to provide the info to generate the scriptPubKey (address or serialized scriptPubKey).

[jl2012]

Also, the etx message won't need to provide scriptPubKey if it is a standard one like P2PK, P2PKH or P2SH. Just use a byte to indicate the type is enough.

It still needs to provide the info to generate the scriptPubKey (address or serialized scriptPubKey).

You don't need any extra info for P2PKH or P2SH because you can reconstruct the scriptPubKey with scriptSig.

(For P2PK and BIP11 multi-sig, however, the etx has to provide the scriptPubKey)

[TierNolan]

You don't need any extra info for P2PKH or P2SH because you can reconstruct the scriptPubKey with scriptSig.

Yes, of course, sorry.

[jl2012]

I wrote this long time ago when I knew Bitcoin not very well. But I always think this has to be done if we increase the max block size.

I would like to rewrite it as follow:

We will formally define "utxoSize", which is

txid (32 bytes) + txoIndex (varInt) + scriptPubKey length (varInt) + scriptPubKey (? bytes) + value (8 byte) + coinbase (1 byte) + coinbase block height (0 or 4 bytes)

txid is the txid of the utxo
txoIndex is the index of the utxo in the tx, recorded as varInt
scriptPubKey length is the length of the scriptPubKey of the utxo, a varInt
scriptPubKey is the scriptPubKey of the utxo
value is the utxo value in Satoshis
coinbase is an indicator to show whether the utxo is a coinbase reward
if it is a coinbase reward, 4 more bytes is needed to record the block height

I think these are the minimal amount of data needed to store utxo. the utxo set needs to show whether an utxo is from coinbase due to the 100-block rule.

However, if the utxo contains ANY one of the invalid OP_CODE, e.g. OP_RETURN, OP_VERIF, OP_CAT which guarantees the script to fail, the utxoSize is set to zero.

For each block, we need to calculate the net change in UTXO size, which is

Code:

utxoDiff = (total utxoSize of new UTXOs) - (total utxoSize of spent UTXOs)

With utxoDiff, we may have a soft-fork rule of one of the followings:

• 1. Put a hardcoded cap to utxoDiff for each block. Therefore, we will be sure that the UTXO set won't grow too fast; or
• 2. If a block has a small (or even negative) utxoDiff, a higher MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is allowed

That will encourage miners to accept txs with small or negative utxoDiff, which will keep the UTXO set small.

If we can make the size of utxo entry a constant (as suggest by TierNolan) for any type of utxo, this could be simplified to

Code:

utxoDiff = (# of new potentially spendable UTXOs) - (# of spent UTXOs)
where
(# of new potentially spendable UTXOs) = (# of new UTXOs) - (# of new UTXOs with invalid OP_CODE)

All UTXOs are considered to be potentially spendable, unless proven otherwise