Expect the Orginals game to get even bigger - actual games

[vjudeu]

But, why will it happen anyway?

Because all limits are successfully bypassed, one-by-one. And UTXO set has no consensus-enforced limit. Which means, that if it is possible to abuse pruned nodes, and to make them store as much data as non-pruned ones need today, then someone will do that.

Do you mean that it is simply possible to happen given enough incentive?

This is one thing. Another is history:

1. Block size limit: set to 1 MB. Reached.
2. Witness size limit: set to 4 MB. Reached.
3. Sigops limit: set to 20,000 (and for witness, increased to 80,000). Reached.

In progress:

1. Time limit: around 0x7fffffff in 2038, and 0xffffffff in 2106. The first one would cause some issues, because nodes cast types between signed and unsigned integers, between 32 and 64 bits. So, even in 2038, there would be some problems, even if those values could work well until 2106. You can always set your system clock to 2040, and see if your regtest node is affected or not.
2. UTXO limit: unlimited, enforced only by the physical specification of most nodes. Will be abused, sooner or later. And then, some limit will be introduced, or it will be abused further, if community will be too lazy to "fix" it.

There are more to-be-reached limits. But we are not there yet, to discuss them properly, because each "fix" and each consensus change, can dramatically change the situation, and stop some attacks, or make other attacks easier. It just depends, if something will be changed, and it depends on how exactly it will be changed. Devil is in the details, and I can guess, what will happen, but I cannot be 100% sure about that. But of course, by writing some code, and testing some scenarios, you can figure it out.

So you're arguing for softfork.

Well, this is the way to stop the attack, because it is too late to stop it in other ways. But you should think about it more widely: I would rather see a soft-fork, which would allow regular users to join their transactions, than a soft-fork, which would explicitly block Ordinals. Because if you "censor" anything, it will have some bright and dark sides. So, it is more clever to do, what the network should do: to prefer payments over Ordinals. And "making regular payments cheaper" is not the same thing as "blocking Ordinals explicitly as a protocol rule".

However, if nothing will be done, then all you can do, is to discourage people to use Ordinals. And if you want to do so, then what you can do with officially released software? Not that much beyond pruning, I guess.

is there discussion about implementing a softfork for this very purpose?

There was a discussion, when the attack started (but not about soft-fork, because then, it was not that serious as today). And there were no decisions to block anything, which means, that status quo is preserved. For many different reasons. Also, because if you want to change something, you have to propose it, and reach consensus. And for simple fixes, like "blocking relay for Ordinals", they were rejected, and not merged into Bitcoin Core, which means, that this proposal was unsuccessful.

And today, there are consequences. Some of them are good, and some of them are bad. The good thing is that some attackers focused on Ordinals, which means, that they can be "censored" in the same simple way, as long time ago, when the attack started. And it is a good thing to keep it like that, to then throw everything away at once, using the same new rules. But of course, there are bad things, like "UTXO flood", which are going to happen in the future, which means, the "fix" will have to address both issues at once: spamming with data, and spamming with UTXOs, at the same time (or it will be insufficient, and will not stop the attack).

I mean serious consideration, not just beating the air.

Note that "status quo" is the default. Which means, that everything works without any changes, unless you successfully propose something, write a code, write some tests, get it accepted, and then get it merged. The path to change consensus rules is much harder, than the path to fix typos in translations.

[1714229421]

1714229421

[1714229421]

1714229421

[1714229421]

1714229421

[1714229421]

1714229421

[1714229421]

1714229421

[mikeywith]

We can also severely penalize storing arbitrary data on the blockchain by making witness data starting with OP_FALSE OP_IF taxable as standard OP_RETURN bytes.

This isn't going to cut it if you want to protect BTC from illegal content, making something more expensive doesn't stop an attacker from doing it, especially if they need to do it only once.

What about using Zero Knowledge Proof to make pruning the UTXO set possible? I recall reading about something like that in the past. I mean, my node would keep only block headers and UTXO commitments, and your node would provide a valid ZKP that certain parts of the UTXO set that I am checking are valid. I think Zcash operates in a similar manner.

because each "fix" and each consensus change, can dramatically change the situation, and stop some attacks, or make other attacks easier

In another thread discussion about the "ban of Ordinals," I did mention that contrary to what many people believe, changing any part of the code is like playing with fire. Anyone with enough real-world application experience would always be hesitant when applying any fix to anything. There is a reason why many billion-dollar companies still use old code that could be optimized. Some people think it's a matter of adding a simple if statement that would automatically ban all BRC-20 transactions without damaging anything.

Lawmaking is difficult in the real world, and so is in BTC. You try to fix something, like making transactions cheaper for the good lads, and you end up making potential attacks like flooding the UTXO set easier and cheaper. There is a huge fundamental issue with BTC, and that is its security is directly related to its value. The higher the value, the more difficult it is to attack, whether that is in terms of 51% attacks, spamming, or UTXO set flooding.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

re: In the US at least, legality of storing/archiving copyrighted content, in this case vintage Nintendo games, per established case law and quoted from the decrypt article:

“Under U.S. Copyright Law, particularly Section 117 of the Copyright Act, owners of legal copies of computer programs (including video games) are allowed to make a backup copy for archival purposes,” Owens said. “Emulators are completely legal, and public domain games are too.”

The catch there is what constitutes a 'backup copy stored by legal owners of the original (and previously purchased) content" and the legality of said 'backup copy' being viewable and/or playable by anyone - not just the legal owner of said previously purchased content?

For those interested in how this interactive variant of Ordinals works using the SNES emulator here is the process used by pizzaninjas

While I applaud the archiving of otherwise ephemeral digital content and acknowledge the need for it (just talk to folks that purchased movies from several streaming sites that later shut down), using the BTC blockchain to do it is just wrong. There has to be another way to create immutable & public digital content libraries that use tokens for DRM control and a widely distributed blockchain...

All that said, as a miner do I like the fees being generated? Hell yes and come the 1/2ing those fees will probably often be close to or exceeding the block rewards.

As an occasional user of BTC so far when transferring coin I have yet to pay what I would consider an excessive fee to have a tx confirmed in less than 1 day. The catch there is, 'excessive fee' compared to what? Late summer of last year I moved several BTC from an online exchange to my hardware wallet for less than $100 and 1st confirmation was within a couple hours. For the last payout from Kanopool 7 days ago to the PPLNS users of the pool Kano used a near-zero fee to distribute the rewards from the pool wallet and it still was confirmed within a few hours. Go fig.

Ja using BTC for lots of <$50 tx's is no longer viable but when the ocassional tx is worth several $k and more - still cheaper and faster than a wire transfer.

[vjudeu]

What about using Zero Knowledge Proof to make pruning the UTXO set possible?

It is technically possible, but nobody proposed it yet. Note that you need:

1. Some kind of formal proposal, like BIP.
2. Source code with changes, and creating a Pull Request.
3. Some code for testing, that all of this is "safe enough to be added".
4. If a soft-fork, then an activation method, and showing support by mining pools.
5. Reaching consensus, and getting enough ACKs, to get it merged.

This is a long path, and it usually takes months, if not years. But yes, it is possible.

And note that it is more likely, that the whole work will be there, but won't be merged. Which means, that you can spend a lot of time on creating something (for example zero knowledge proofs), and people can say "no, it won't be merged". Then, you can get some criticism of things, that you should fix before trying again.

And one of those points could be: "users will use signatures and public keys to spam anyway". If your proposal cannot stop it, then it won't be merged.

So, you can "improve" it, and say "using ZKP is mandatory". And then, someone will point out, that "old, timelocked transactions, which are valid today, will be invalid, when your code will be merged". What then?

Another point to address is "mining pools won't accept your proposal, because it will lower their profits". And then, like it or not, your proposal can be covered with not enough Proof of Work, which means, that it cannot be a soft-fork. What then?

And because all of that, I think "the fix" should be a no-fork, applied on the level of Initial Blockchain Download, without touching consensus at all. Then, it would be 100% voluntary, but if it will be propagated sufficiently, then people will install and use it, when their nodes will be taken down by DMCA complaints.

But the most likely outcome is that nobody will propose anything, which means, that you are left with, what we have today. Which is again: not that much beyond pruning.

[ABCbits]

We can also severely penalize storing arbitrary data on the blockchain by making witness data starting with OP_FALSE OP_IF taxable as standard OP_RETURN bytes.

This isn't going to cut it if you want to protect BTC from illegal content, making something more expensive doesn't stop an attacker from doing it, especially if they need to do it only once.

But don't you agree it's better than doing nothing?

What about using Zero Knowledge Proof to make pruning the UTXO set possible? I recall reading about something like that in the past. I mean, my node would keep only block headers and UTXO commitments, and your node would provide a valid ZKP that certain parts of the UTXO set that I am checking are valid.

Do you refer to ZeroSync (https://zerosync.org/)?

I think Zcash operates in a similar manner.

IIRC ZKP on Zcash used to create private/anonymous TX rather than UTXO set.

[mikeywith]

re: In the US at least, legality of storing/archiving copyrighted content, in this case vintage Nintendo games, per established case law and quoted from the decrypt article:

“Under U.S. Copyright Law, particularly Section 117 of the Copyright Act, owners of legal copies of computer programs (including video games) are allowed to make a backup copy for archival purposes,” Owens said. “Emulators are completely legal, and public domain games are too.”

If you put it on the blockchain in plain text then it becomes accessible by everyone, which i suppose is illegal based on what you posted above.

Maybe you can encrypt the content using your private key, this way nobody else can retrieve the content of the file you inscribed.

And then, as a node operator, you would only worry about your country's law (assuming your node sits there too).

But don't you agree it's better than doing nothing?

Well making attacks more costly is indeed better than doing nothing, but the kind of attack we talking about here does not require redundancy, an attacker would only need one transaction to "infect" the blockchain and then take you to court, so if it costs $10 or $1000 when done only once, it won't make any difference.

For other attacks that depend on frequency, this indeed would help reduce them, we just need to evaluate what could be broken along the way of doing it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Note that "status quo" is the default.

I get it. The gamble is whether this conservative approach of not doing anything prevails on the long term. It is as much a problem as a feature. But, to not go off-topic, I believe this will not pass. No sane miner would accept working on a chain that censors this type of transaction.

Because all limits are successfully bypassed, one-by-one. And UTXO set has no consensus-enforced limit. Which means, that if it is possible to abuse pruned nodes, and to make them store as much data as non-pruned ones need today, then someone will do that.

Pruned nodes keep the UTXO set, but you can't inject arbitrary data there, like Ordinals. So, how can you store as much data as non-pruned nodes?

Maybe you can encrypt the content using your private key, this way nobody else can retrieve the content of the file you inscribed.

Not a lawyer, but distributing illegal material encrypted sounds illegal. What if you post your private key publicly? Encrypted isn't local.

[vjudeu]

So, how can you store as much data as non-pruned nodes?

Imagine that you are an attacker. Start regtest. Set it in pruned mode. Try to spam. See, what is kept by another node, and what is pruned. Note that "blocks" directory is pruned, but "chainstate" is not. And note that consuming a single input, and producing a lot of outputs, has the same feerate, as some another transaction, which will consume a lot of inputs, and produce a single output. Which means, that "UTXO consumers" are not rewarded, even though they make running pruned nodes easier. And note that "UTXO producers" are not punished, even though they can just produce UTXOs out of thin air, without any limits, and then never spend them. And also note that the number of UTXOs can be bigger than the number of satoshis in circulation.

What if you post your private key publicly?

I agree. Encryption won't help there, because all that is needed, is just using weak encryption key, or just using a simple XOR, and pretending that something is "encrypted" sufficiently. Which means, that to discourage people to store their data on-chain, they should receive a clear message, that nodes are not going to serve those data, and all they will do, is to make sure that signatures and public keys are correct, and not much more beyond that.

By the way: Bitcoin is not about storing data forever. It is about double-spending problem. And if some coin was created, then moved between many people, and then 100% of that was turned into fees, then that history can be safely pruned, because if a coinbase transaction, which collected those fees, is good enough to be spent, then everything below that is now rock-solid, and will never be reorged anyway (and also, the same transaction flow can then be recreated from any other fees, so the chain of signatures starts with the coinbase transaction, and ends, when the coin is sent as fees).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Note that "blocks" directory is pruned, but "chainstate" is not.

My bad. You can inject arbitrary data in UTXO. It's just more expensive.

By the way: Bitcoin is not about storing data forever. It is about double-spending problem. And if some coin was created, then moved between many people, and then 100% of that was turned into fees, then that history can be safely pruned, because if a coinbase transaction, which collected those fees, is good enough to be spent, then everything below that is now rock-solid

The history of those coins can be safely ignored in the sense that they were recreated, but you do need to know about their past to reach their future, so some nodes will still need to store that piece of information.

[mikeywith]

Not a lawyer, but distributing illegal material encrypted sounds illegal. What if you post your private key publicly? Encrypted isn't local.

Not a lawyer either, but as long as you don't intentionally expose the private key then how would anyone know the content?  besides the law explicitly says according to what NFW posted above

owners of legal copies of computer programs (including video games) are allowed to make a backup copy for archival purposes,” Owens said. “Emulators are completely legal, and public domain games are too.”

The blockchain is no different than a VPS you rent from someone in this regard if I archive a copy of a video game I bought legally on a VPS "even without encrypting it" and then the actual VPS owner finds his way in (which they can easily), or even a hacker for that matter, how would I be held responsible? I don't know how countries that have copy-right laws go about enforcing these laws because they are as complicated as fudge.

I am certainly not advising anyone to post illegal content on the blockchain (or any content for that matter), but I can see how some of those folks who want to play games on the blockchain would go about encrypting their copies of the game as a measurement of protection.

And note that consuming a single input, and producing a lot of outputs, has the same feerate, as some another transaction, which will consume a lot of inputs, and produce a single output.

And the size of inputs is 4x the size of outputs.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

...

By the way: Bitcoin is not about storing data forever. It is about double-spending problem. And if some coin was created, then moved between many people, and then 100% of that was turned into fees, then that history can be safely pruned, because if a coinbase transaction, which collected those fees, is good enough to be spent, then everything below that is now rock-solid, and will never be reorged anyway (and also, the same transaction flow can then be recreated from any other fees, so the chain of signatures starts with the coinbase transaction, and ends, when the coin is sent as fees).

I wholeheartedly agree!
That's why I said the same thing earlier. Now the concept of of using A decentralized public blockchain as an immutable type of cloud storage for what is otherwise ephemeral digital content is a sound one and provided DRM issues can be resolved, having the content publicly accessible would be great so We The Public can read/view/play, etc it.

Just as with out of print books, there is a shitton of games, movies, software etc. that is no longer distributed by the copyright holders that users would LOVE to have access to and be willing to still pay the copyright holders for the rights to access it. Again, that said - using the BTC for it is NOT the way to do it.

[satscraper]

My stance on this (as a home miner) is that the drama is not about the miners making a lot of money, it's about the blockchain becoming less usable; if we extrapolate to a worst-case scenario, where a potential majority of users might stop using it and selling their BTC due to lowered usability, everyone else (i.e. the people who love inscribing data on the blockchain) suffers, too.

Wouldn't be a potential solution to this drama  the implementation of the block space restriction for transactions which use coding to bypass the 'datacarriersize' limit?

AFAIK, in the early days, miners prioritized the  "aged" transactions. Why not continue favoring those transactions that do not circumvent the default 'datacarriersize' cap?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Not a lawyer either, but as long as you don't intentionally expose the private key then how would anyone know the content?

And as long as there are no cameras and nobody around, how can anyone know you've stolen a bike? Nonetheless, it is illegal to do.

AFAIK, in the early days, miners prioritized the  "aged" transactions. Why not continue favoring those transactions that do not circumvent the default 'datacarriersize' cap?

Isn't it already apparent that sweet profit is the answer? Transactions which pay a lot more than "aged" transactions, have priority. Maybe a small amount of profit does not incentivize them enough to bypass such rules (e.g., standardness), but millions of dollars worth of bitcoin definitely outweigh these rules.

[mikeywith]

And as long as there are no cameras and nobody around, how can anyone know you've stolen a bike? Nonetheless, it is illegal to do.

This is apples vs oranges, stealing a bike is illegal, storing a copy of a file you obtained legally and lawfully own is not illegal, if you buy a movie/song and store it on your google drive, dropbox or some random VPS that is legal as far as I know.

If I manage to access those files and use them, then it is me commiting crime not you, and I think the same will apply to these ordinals, those folks are not stupid and have probably consulted the right people given that their identities are known to the public -- they would unlikely take that risk.

[BlackHatCoiner]

This is apples vs oranges, stealing a bike is illegal, storing a copy of a file you obtained legally and lawfully own is not illegal

Storing a copy of a legally obtained file locally is not illegal. Distributing a copyrighted file universally without the creator's permission is definitely not legal.

if you buy a movie/song and store it on your google drive, dropbox or some random VPS that is legal as far as I know.

Storing it locally on a cloud service is completely different than distributing it to the entire Bitcoin network.

If I manage to access those files and use them, then it is me commiting crime not you

Both. When downloading a movie from Pirate Bay, sure, you're committing a crime, but so is the seeder who has uploaded it. In fact, most of the times, the authorities look for the uploaders.

those folks are not stupid and have probably consulted the right people given that their identities are known to the public

Do we really know which people are behind Ordinals? What prevents me from anonymously buying / selling / issuing Ordinals?

[ABCbits]

My stance on this (as a home miner) is that the drama is not about the miners making a lot of money, it's about the blockchain becoming less usable; if we extrapolate to a worst-case scenario, where a potential majority of users might stop using it and selling their BTC due to lowered usability, everyone else (i.e. the people who love inscribing data on the blockchain) suffers, too.

Wouldn't be a potential solution to this drama  the implementation of the block space restriction for transactions which use coding to bypass the 'datacarriersize' limit?

Such restriction would require a fork (either soft or hard fork), where it's unlikely to happen.

AFAIK, in the early days, miners prioritized the  "aged" transactions. Why not continue favoring those transactions that do not circumvent the default 'datacarriersize' cap?

Actually in past miners were prioritizing some transaction with "Aged" UTXO. Anyway, miners merely followed default Bitcoin-Qt (now it's called Bitcoin Core) behavior. But after some time, mining become more serious stuff where miner prioritize profit.

[mikeywith]

Storing it locally on a cloud service is completely different than distributing it to the entire Bitcoin network.

How is it different? storing something on the blockchain is not exactly "distributing" it, your UTXOs all stored on my PC, but only you can "use" them, the song you bought is stored on the same disk I use (dropbox for example) and i also can't use it.

Also, how do these things differ?

1- you upload a copy of a file you bought to google drive ( meaning you are now by default share it with google and everyone who has access to storage files in google)

2- you upload the same file to blockchain, encrypted where nobody can view it.

I believe at this point, fair use still plays out, when here is how to break it.

For google drive, you intentionally share the download link to that file.

For blockchain, you intentionally share the private key to decrypt the file.

I did some reading in regards to U.S copyright laws, and it is no where near simple, i.e, you can't just say storing a copyright protected file on the blockchain is illegal or legal, it is more complicated than that, i have read different opinions regarding to this subject, you can dive into the rabbit whole by searching for "storing encrypted copyright protected files online".

Do we really know which people are behind Ordinals?

I was talking about this project itself, the team that inscribed this ninja game.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

I get your points, and the law is way out of my field, but what concerns me is that only the participants of that illegal activity are held accountable, and permit distribution.

- If I upload Oppenheimer on Google Drive, and then distribute the download link, then I'm responsible for that action. The authorities will warn Google about the incident, and Google will notify me about its deletion.
- If I upload Oppenheimer on Pirate Bay, and be one of the seeders, then I'm also responsible for that action. The authorities will contact me, and request to stop distributing it (in the best case scenario). Then, maybe they request from every other seeder to shut down their operations.

What happens if I upload it on the blockchain? Maybe I'm still responsible, but I hold no permission over the Bitcoin network. So, maybe I get a fine, but the activity is still on-going. I am no longer accountable. So, who is to blame if not every node distributing it?

[mikeywith]

True, I believe we were discussing the matter from an angle that is irrelevant to the big picture. In my previous replies, I focused on the legal consequences for the person uploading legally protected content. However, does that even matter? I mean, anyone can do that and maintain their privacy, and nobody would go after them. I think what matters most here is the other side of the problem: users storing and rebroadcasting that shared content.

Suppose I upload a copyright-protected file obtained illegally (bypassing the discussion of whether I have the right to do so, because clearly, in this case, I don't). If that file becomes part of the files YOU own, by law, you are required to get rid of it, and there is the problem.

The blockchain, as it stands, probably contains a lot of illegal data, be it copyright violations or other illegal content like child pornography or anything deemed illegal by many countries. Now, the question arises: if enough government pressure is imposed on all node operators, how will they be able to prune all that illegal content without affecting the ability of the full node to operate properly (maintain censuses and validate transactions?).

Currently, if an attacker puts something illegal in the UTXO set, pruning it would be difficult without affecting the full node's ability to operate as it should. However, for authorities to know whether your node has that piece of legal info or not would be complicated. In the future, if enough pressure is put on node operators in the U.S, everyone may push for a change. As of now, vjudeu's reply to my suggestion (which I read somewhere in the past) regarding using Zero Knowledge Proof so that nodes don't need to store the complete UTXO set makes perfect sense. there is no interest, especially from mining pools, as it could reduce their profits. However, if shit hits the fan, mining pools might support and even fund a similar fix to protect themselves from governments. As it stands now, it seems like we are giving authorities much more weight than we should. Perhaps, for now, we may as well continue ignoring them as if nothing is happening.

[n0nce]

The blockchain, as it stands, probably contains a lot of illegal data, be it copyright violations or other illegal content like child pornography or anything deemed illegal by many countries. Now, the question arises: if enough government pressure is imposed on all node operators, how will they be able to prune all that illegal content without affecting the ability of the full node to operate properly (maintain censuses and validate transactions?).

Regarding illegal content, from a legal (not moral) perspective, the simplest solution may be to make your node only reachable through Tor. You'll still be doing something illegal, by distributing material that you're not allowed to distribute, when seeding the blockchain and broadcasting new blocks containing such data, but it will be tough for local authorities to find you and get you to shut the node down and / or punish you.

This solves neither the moral concern of distributing such data, nor does it solve the reduced usability through high fees and our nodes' memory being filled up quicker than needed.

I think long-term, Bitcoin needs a Grin-type solution that allows us to 'prune' unnecessary parts of transactions, encrypts addresses and so forth; for privacy reasons, making it easier to spin up a node, as well as stopping attacks that abuse the blockchain for things that are not monetary transactions.