Questions for Greg Maxwell

[ABCbits]

Well, I didn't know BRC tokens use Segwit. So I should have been more precise: jpeg ordinal spammers regularly get ~75% Segwit discount.

While I'm sure you will find some exceptions, if you navigate the last 100 ordinals on mempool.space, you will see this is largely accurate: ordinals get a ~75% discount, with rare exceptions.

FYI, majority Ordinal TX that create new inscription comes from BRC-20. So majority Ordinal wouldn't have near 75% witness discount, unless you exclude BRC-20.

I also forget to mention that Ordinal protocol demand you to create 2 TX. So if you bothered to calculate those 2 TX, the witness discount would be a bit lower than 75% even for inscription that embed big arbitrary data.

Ordinals require you to create 2 TX, where 1st TX send Bitcoin to specific Taproot address (with custom script) and 2nd TX reveal the custom script which contain arbitrary data.

[ertil]

Why don't you try to answer the question?

Because you received the answer, and rejected it as a lie. What's the point of answering the question, if you know "the true answer", and you don't want to accept anything else? I don't know, if you will be convinced, that for example miners are important, even if BIP-110 will fail.

The number of inputs is irrelevent.

Of course it is relevant, because each byte from each input is counted as 4x more, than witness space. Which means that 500-of-500 multisig will have a bigger discount, than 500 separate inputs, even if transaction size in bytes will be the same.

[PepeLapiu]

The number of inputs is irrelevent.

Of course it is relevant

No it's not.

Here is a monetary tx with 1 input:
https://mempool.space/tx/ab468d9c10bef04919e12eaa4103c3d73e1b3365648115f1ac72217951a96ec4
With a single input and two outputs, it gets a 25% discount. It probably would have gotten a 40% discountbif it had a single output.

And here is a monetary tx with 500 inputs and a single output:
https://mempool.space/tx/7061b343aa324b2d115a3a1447bf7ba4d3454197ca8666634c2ef29994317cf9
That one gets a 50% discount.

And jpeg ordinal spam generally get a 75% discount.

That is to say monetary users generally are lucky to get a 50% while spammers get a 75%, and end up paying half as much as monetary users.

So if spammers get block space for cheaper, who are the fees really filtering?

[DaveF]

FYI, majority Ordinal TX that create new inscription comes from BRC-20. So majority Ordinal wouldn't have near 75% witness discount, unless you exclude BRC-20.

Why don't you try to answer the question?

Because you received the answer, and rejected it as a lie. What's the point of answering the question, if you know "the true answer", and you don't want to accept anything else? I don't know, if you will be convinced, that for example miners are important, even if BIP-110 will fail.

The number of inputs is irrelevent.

Of course it is relevant, because each byte from each input is counted as 4x more, than witness space. Which means that 500-of-500 multisig will have a bigger discount, than 500 separate inputs, even if transaction size in bytes will be the same.

Yeah, but according to him magic will happen and all the miners will just start signaling 110 and mining their censored blocks.
And exchanges will update to only accept his blocks.
Along with the chain not splitting in early August.

We are all arguing with a cult member. Luke is his one true god.

Pepe may or may not have been a successful trader. But it's obvious at this point he has no BTC, and does no have any gear that is mining. All he wants to do is make BTC the way he wants it to be. Just a guess but he probably lost a ton with the Ordinals craze or something similar and is now bitter about it. Not important in the long run since once again much like BCH / BSV the 'one true way' that others must fall in line about is just not going to happen.

Shrug, whatever, we have to keep pointing out how he is wrong to keep others from potentially falling into the trap. But even if they do unless they do something stupid after the fork it's not like they are going to loose their coins unless they go out and do something stupid. At worst they have to resync a node or 2 that they have running.

On the flip side those of us with miners can probably make a little more money after the fork by pointing out SHA gear at MRR / Nicehash because they are going to have to pay a lot to get hash to move their chain.

-Dave

[PepeLapiu]

(rambling bullshit and personal attacks)

-Dave

All you do is bullshit while avoiding the question:

If most ordinal spammers pay half as much in miner fees as monetary users, who atevthe fees really filtering out?[/quote]

Yeah, but according to him magic will happen and all the miners will just start signaling 110 and mining their censored blocks.

Yup, that's how coretards like to frame it. For 11 years the op_return was working just fine without anyone ever getting censored. And all of a sudden when core wanted to facilitate spam for their citrea friends, the op_return filter and any anti-spam measure became censorship.

Based on coretard logic, bitcoin can only be really survive as decentralized money if we tolerate dickbutt.jpegs on the chain and even go as far as facilitating dickbutt.jpegs.

[ertil]

If most ordinal spammers pay half as much in miner fees as monetary users, who atevthe fees really filtering out?

Again, those who cannot consolidate coins properly. For example, if instead 500 separate coins, you would have 500-of-500 multisig, then it would be much cheaper.

One example, where all signatures are pushed on-chain separately: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/1cea837056b999016fe7d74ce84e9e378fa0bea26c80dc896f32e9394892ea26

Another example, where a combined signature is created: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/4b98a1513b53503a7cc14c7ab9aee3c22a09a2353e2adf50709daf950c351210

And then, it costs 12,481 satoshis to push all 500 signatures on-chain. Or 111 satoshis, if they are all combined into a single signature.

Do you want to tell me, that it is somehow more expensive, than your example? https://mempool.space/tx/7061b343aa324b2d115a3a1447bf7ba4d3454197ca8666634c2ef29994317cf9

In your case, it would cost 33,982 satoshis, if the fee rate would be the same. Which means, that by using a single coin with 500-of-500 multisig, you can save around 20k satoshis (or more, if you can combine signatures, instead of pushing all of them on-chain). Because each and every transaction input or output has a cost, which is 4x more expensive, than it could be, if you would pack it into a single coin.

And now, do you want to disable Taproot entirely, and force these users paying 111 satoshis or 12k satoshis, to pay 34k satoshis, and use separate coins, just because you want to block scripts, which are too complex for you to understand?

[PepeLapiu]

@ertil is showing himself to be acomplete waste of my time.

If most ordinal spammers pay half as much in miner fees as monetary users, who atevthe fees really filtering out?

Again, those who cannot consolidate coins properly. For example, if instead 500 separate coins, you would have 500-of-500 multisig, then it would be much cheaper.

Show me an example of 500-of-500 multisif that gets a 75% discount and is not spam.

But regardless, even small monetary tx's with a single input and a single output will be lucky to get a 50% Segwit discount. Yet ordinal spammers routinely and consistantly get a 75% Segwit discount.

One example, where all signatures are pushed on-chain separately: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/1cea837056b999016fe7d74ce84e9e378fa0bea26c80dc896f32e9394892ea26

Waste of my time. It's on testnet. Show me a real one, a real use case in real life.

Another example, where a combined signature is created: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/4b98a1513b53503a7cc14c7ab9aee3c22a09a2353e2adf50709daf950c351210

More waste of my time. This tx is a single input and a single output with a 31% Segwit discount. And it's on testnet. Show me a real one, a real use case in real life.

And then, it costs 12,481 satoshis to push all 500 signatures on-chain. Or 111 satoshis, if they are all combined into a single signature.

Yawn.
Show me how to consolidate 500 UTXOs with a 500-of-500 multisig with a 75% Segwit discount on the mainnet, not the testnet.
Explain it to me like I'm 8 years old, with simple easy steps to follow. So that everyone who reads it can understand it.

And now, do you want to disable Taproot entirely

BIP110 does not disable Taproot entirely. But if/when I become the Bitcoin network CEO I would deactivate taproot completely. And only re-inplement the parts of it that don't break bitcoin by allowing gigantic dickbutt.jpeg into Segwit.


I'm going to explain it to you like you are 5 years old. Because you want to dilute everything.

The majority of monetary Segwit tx's are made up of 1-2 inputs and 1-2 outputs. No complicated convoluted multisig transactions with 100's of inputs or 100's of outputs.

People who are spending or receiving bitcoin. Those are who bitcoin is for. Those are the users the system should be built for.

Those users rarely broadcast a tx that is larger than 300 bytes large. And they would be hard pressed to ever get a 50% Segwit discount, if that. Most likely less that 40% Segwit discount most of the time. It's the rare monetary user who gets more than 50% Segwit discount.

On the other hand, most ordinal spammers will use far larger tx's routinely and most often get a 75% Segwit discount. It's the very rare case tgatva spammer gets less than 70% discount.

You can point to rarely seen examples on both sides. But those are not representative of anything. They are edge cases.

So if the average monetary Segwit user gets a 40% discount and the average spam Segwit grifter gets a 75% discount, who are the fees really filtering here?

[PrivacyG]

Based on coretard logic, bitcoin can only be really survive as decentralized money if we tolerate dickbutt.jpegs on the chain and even go as far as facilitating dickbutt.jpegs.

Bitcointalktards logic is also that Bitcoin Talk can only really survive as a decentralized forum if we tolerate all the people here and even go as far as letting them write shit posts all day long.  For some people like you, I sometimes wish there was an exception to the rule too.  Just like you do.  It is what it is.

[PepeLapiu]

Bitcointalktards logic is also that Bitcoin Talk can only really survive as a decentralized forum if we tolerate all the people here and even go as far as letting them write shit posts all day long.  For some people like you, I sometimes wish there was an exception to the rule too.  Just like you do.  It is what it is.

Pffft!
:eye roll:

I have news for you. Neither is this forum "decentralized" nor is it censorship free.

This account is 5-6 years old. I was moderately active here for the first 4-5 years. I never saw any of my posts deleted, or moved to a less visible section. I was under the impression this forum was pretty open.

But all that changed when the spam war started a year ago. As soon as I talk about spam, core, Knots, or BIP110, many of my posts get deleted. Many of my threads get moved to a less visible section, or they get locked, or deleted. Some of the people who agree with me see their posts in my threads deleted. That way, I look like some lone lunatic nobody agrees with.

But here is a few tips for you if you find me annoying.

Tip #1: Click on "ignore" to the left of this post and you will never have to read one of my posts again.

Tip #2: Click the complaint button at the top right of this window. It looks like an X in a box. As soon as you click it, your complaint will be forwarded to the proper authorities.

But I have a distinct feeling that you are not interested in doing any of this. Because what it's not that you don't want to be annoyed, it's not that you don't want to read my posts. What you are really looking for is to prevent others from hearing what I'm saying.

[ertil]

No complicated convoluted multisig transactions

Which is exactly why they don't get that much discount. If Bitcoin will have a lot of more users, then it will have to handle many users per UTXO. Otherwise, it will be congested, like it was in 2017, or it will be more centralized, and then most users will use third parties like exchanges, to move their coins for them. You want to scale? Then you need multiple users per UTXO. Lightning Network is changing the number of users per UTXO from one to two. Other protocols expand it more, and allow N users per UTXO. And these N-of-N multisigs will be cheaper, than using N separate coins, because they can be batched. Which is by design.

So if the average monetary Segwit user gets a 40% discount and the average spam Segwit grifter gets a 75% discount, who ate the fees really filtering here?

The answer didn't change since the last time you received it: those, who use one UTXO per user, and have N coins, instead of having one coin, with N-of-N multisig, which would be cheaper, and would give these users a bigger discount.

Of course, users cannot be forced to switch to cheaper ways of spending coins. If they don't want to pay less, then they can always pay more, and use one coin per user. Sooner or later, there will be more users, than the system can handle. And then, these users will have to consolidate their coins into huge multisigs, or compete with exchanges, and other big players, for the same block space.

[PepeLapiu]

So if the average monetary Segwit user gets a 40% discount and the average spam Segwit grifter gets a 75% discount, who are the fees really filtering here?

The answer didn't change since the last time you received it: those, who use one UTXO per user, and have N coins, instead of having one coin, with N-of-N multisig, which would be cheaper, and would give these users a bigger discount.

You are making shit up and/or trying to the derail the conversation.
Here is my last transaction with Segwit:

https://mempool.space/tx/74d6d05d7d013be3bb547a56fe36951543df024a89f5f8f90445826a08ad6cf5

One input, and two outputs, with a 34% Segwit discount. This is a typical pleb monetary transaction. I would guess that over 95% of monetary transactions with Segwit look like this: 1-2 inputs and 1-2 outputs.

Humour me and explain to me like I'm 8 years old how you gonna use N-of-N multisig to make that transaction cheaper and give me a 75% Segwit discount. I'll hold my breath.....

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

So if the average monetary Segwit user gets a 40% discount and the average spam Segwit grifter gets a 75% discount, who are the fees really filtering here?

The answer didn't change since the last time you received it: those, who use one UTXO per user, and have N coins, instead of having one coin, with N-of-N multisig, which would be cheaper, and would give these users a bigger discount.

You are making shit up and/or trying to the derail the conversation.
Here is my last transaction with Segwit:

https://mempool.space/tx/74d6d05d7d013be3bb547a56fe36951543df024a89f5f8f90445826a08ad6cf5

One input, and two outputs, with a 34% Segwit discount. This is a typical pleb monetary transaction. I would guess that over 95% of monetary transactions with Segwit look like this: 1-2 inputs and 1-2 outputs.

Humour me and explain to me like I'm 8 years old how you gonna use N-of-N multisig to make that transaction cheaper and give me a 75% Segwit discount. I'll hold my breath.....

How do we know that is your transaction and not one you just found on a block explorer?
Can you sign a message from bc1qrs8s7jvmyp5s4677udme6nt0cl4xuuqe2aj8m2

[ertil]

how you gonna use N-of-N multisig to make that transaction cheaper

Let's see:

P2WPKH target: bc1qrs8s7jvmyp5s4677udme6nt0cl4xuuqe2aj8m2
Previous targets:

bc1qk9m62nmrtykllfdey0v6vcxluknu0dglp8uevu
bc1qs6jt3xnnq6gvcwrpyyj69gu9dxsu4u0570dx3a
bc1qyc3u2hnah8jnsrz03hvny0pgy9xs0h2f7dsv39
bc1qkppka3uq485yxcrgyguv2fnlfanudvmvgn7da8
bc1q5vcn20d8pj57f69qfsfl02hy9pdy73y7h0n2zw
bc1qgx2xla8w9l9rmtw3ll0lxzh90cj4hfzfum840d
bc1qwffw2ms2lszg25y0u900jjk4ulg82s6gs2xdf6
bc1qpxrugnz374h4a4c5zza4lmfp2f9mmravcg20jd
bc1q606tskp2qr9wevt7glv4pw3jv3j0m6k206sxfq
bc1qp0qc42azkegsap7n98rtdq86xrncm0636tecxu
bc1qjulz6s5jz0vzgmsjhllfjpeg8y4ek96tkcs0kg
bc1q9nepqf5ncs2cxeg5fzflmnk3rmc9gk7jrakjwc
bc1qll7yy086w6wflkamgthsc5yxjxmuq3vg3q3zq0
bc1q3282dkelj7fxdw4xyznhyjrzs3dzdarych0gwm
bc1q4n5nf0e797natrqv3mmjufef6lrzp86jgju04q
bc1qjfkvwj5z4rtecarvcl0u6844vts4hy8g2akjy2
bc1qmh2rr0sa4vnfh29j5upxm2h6lr569rx2wwldfp

Initial amount: 0.51072019 BTC at bc1qmh2rr0sa4vnfh29j5upxm2h6lr569rx2wwldfp

Let's see, how much it would cost, to process exactly the same chain of transactions, but in batched form:

Code:

+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qgnft7qr7vjl880hjan9v7ntucrsgh6tudgkhm0wwx54dsk8y7q8qyc3yr8 | 0.00645767 BTC |
| bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh                     | 0.38109263 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qvaqgxua6ea5mnc6c8vkvpr0u0d27m08pudmdjykx5rqrp76k86dseygf89 ‎| 0.00663339 BTC |
| bc1qrs8s7jvmyp5s4677udme6nt0cl4xuuqe2aj8m2                     | ‎0.38755183 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC | 
| bc1qll5p6f3tyvuakpayhm4d7k20h6c9rj7v395pyg9cj3avq7vtg0ws093yah | ‎0.00691875 BTC |
| bc1qk9m62nmrtykllfdey0v6vcxluknu0dglp8uevu                     | 0.39418675 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1q4x25hu0lksqm4kvvwykczyf4hhas9n96jfglpq                     | ‎0.00678004 BTC |
| bc1qs6jt3xnnq6gvcwrpyyj69gu9dxsu4u0570dx3a                     | ‎0.40110703 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qgsyd2xhn8aen6nwv5sdvkughmfwr8e93qwqdqt8d4ahx8d7cejcq7tn3mz | ‎0.00702086 BTC |
| bc1qyc3u2hnah8jnsrz03hvny0pgy9xs0h2f7dsv39                     | ‎0.40788848 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000142 BTC |
| 3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg                             | ‎0.00279655 BTC |
| bc1qkppka3uq485yxcrgyguv2fnlfanudvmvgn7da8                     | ‎0.41491087 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qgplxq432fpjvsq7xyev0u88zfqfn6dgtmhmuw6h08y3urr6gvl9qux4s8e | ‎0.00706329 BTC |
| bc1q5vcn20d8pj57f69qfsfl02hy9pdy73y7h0n2zw                     | ‎0.41770884 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1qjccjg6mlu8p0usc9gfm0t0zrl3ffn88u3fd44k                     | ‎0.00529145 BTC |
| bc1qgx2xla8w9l9rmtw3ll0lxzh90cj4hfzfum840d                     | ‎0.42477366 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1qy2pkkwrgt7fygg76vesgg4583xj77r5cxnrtgf                     | ‎0.00284350 BTC |
| bc1qwffw2ms2lszg25y0u900jjk4ulg82s6gs2xdf6                     | ‎0.43006652 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qmnrcqnhsjsdemhmrqkk404ena5zffjqr5jzcgpsqv036tzgt0c4q2pjdsl | ‎0.00724814 BTC |
| bc1qpxrugnz374h4a4c5zza4lmfp2f9mmravcg20jd                     | ‎0.43291143 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1q2ltchsyf2jkxfp0mpkjm7slhl542zgzwfkehqn                     | ‎0.01025691 BTC |
| bc1q606tskp2qr9wevt7glv4pw3jv3j0m6k206sxfq                     | ‎0.44016110 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000142 BTC |
| 3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg                             | 0.00294192 BTC |
| bc1qp0qc42azkegsap7n98rtdq86xrncm0636tecxu                     | 0.45041942 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qy2naw5a0y30fqx3zzmp75u9p3c63uc5g2qr5fzs5h06nc9cuu0nsj8dzmw | 0.00689148 BTC |
| bc1qjulz6s5jz0vzgmsjhllfjpeg8y4ek96tkcs0kg                     | 0.45336276 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000142 BTC |
| 3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg                             | 0.00284394 BTC |
| bc1q9nepqf5ncs2cxeg5fzflmnk3rmc9gk7jrakjwc                     | 0.46025577 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1qx3sjq0mc7da8jy07fre8stt0qyy8qugklzsdpe                     | 0.02208816 BTC |
| bc1qll7yy086w6wflkamgthsc5yxjxmuq3vg3q3zq0                     | 0.46310113 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000153 BTC |
| bc1qeyqfcer4sa6vsxc748s37mzaex7mxsu9wgtns3e92yzyfl3yfx3s0hymer | 0.00670214 BTC |
| bc1q3282dkelj7fxdw4xyznhyjrzs3dzdarych0gwm                     | 0.48519070 BTC | 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000142 BTC |
| 3LqA6JN8KBDr5gDEisza4Ro1Fev12digYm                             | 0.01881554 BTC |
| bc1q4n5nf0e797natrqv3mmjufef6lrzp86jgju04q                     | 0.49189437 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| fees                                                           | 0.00000141 BTC |
| bc1q5h7mvald3u3w3cre5h00kakhhqhrsx2krqwv8a                     | 0.00000745 BTC |
| bc1qjfkvwj5z4rtecarvcl0u6844vts4hy8g2akjy2                     | 0.51071133 BTC |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+

This is what happened, when users used their coins separately, without any multisig. Total fees: 153+153+153+141+153+142+153+141+141+153+141+142+153+142+141+153+142+141=2638 satoshis

How would it look like, when we would apply a simple CoinJoin on that? Let's see:

Code:

+----------+----------------+    +----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| multisig | 0.51072019 BTC | -> | fees                                                           | 0.00002638 BTC |
+----------+----------------+    | bc1q5h7mvald3u3w3cre5h00kakhhqhrsx2krqwv8a                     | 0.00000745 BTC |
                                 | 3LqA6JN8KBDr5gDEisza4Ro1Fev12digYm                             | 0.01881554 BTC |
                                 | bc1qeyqfcer4sa6vsxc748s37mzaex7mxsu9wgtns3e92yzyfl3yfx3s0hymer | 0.00670214 BTC |
                                 | bc1qx3sjq0mc7da8jy07fre8stt0qyy8qugklzsdpe                     | 0.02208816 BTC |
                                 | 3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg                             | 0.00858241 BTC |
                                 | bc1qy2naw5a0y30fqx3zzmp75u9p3c63uc5g2qr5fzs5h06nc9cuu0nsj8dzmw | 0.00689148 BTC |
                                 | bc1q2ltchsyf2jkxfp0mpkjm7slhl542zgzwfkehqn                     | ‎0.01025691 BTC |
                                 | bc1qmnrcqnhsjsdemhmrqkk404ena5zffjqr5jzcgpsqv036tzgt0c4q2pjdsl | ‎0.00724814 BTC |
                                 | bc1qy2pkkwrgt7fygg76vesgg4583xj77r5cxnrtgf                     | ‎0.00284350 BTC |
                                 | bc1qjccjg6mlu8p0usc9gfm0t0zrl3ffn88u3fd44k                     | ‎0.00529145 BTC |
                                 | bc1qgplxq432fpjvsq7xyev0u88zfqfn6dgtmhmuw6h08y3urr6gvl9qux4s8e | ‎0.00706329 BTC |
                                 | bc1qgsyd2xhn8aen6nwv5sdvkughmfwr8e93qwqdqt8d4ahx8d7cejcq7tn3mz | ‎0.00702086 BTC |
                                 | bc1q4x25hu0lksqm4kvvwykczyf4hhas9n96jfglpq                     | ‎0.00678004 BTC |
                                 | bc1qll5p6f3tyvuakpayhm4d7k20h6c9rj7v395pyg9cj3avq7vtg0ws093yah | ‎0.00691875 BTC |
                                 | bc1qvaqgxua6ea5mnc6c8vkvpr0u0d27m08pudmdjykx5rqrp76k86dseygf89 ‎| 0.00663339 BTC |
                                 | bc1qgnft7qr7vjl880hjan9v7ntucrsgh6tudgkhm0wwx54dsk8y7q8qyc3yr8 | 0.00645767 BTC |
                                 | bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh                     | 0.38109263 BTC |
                                 +----------------------------------------------------------------+----------------+

And then, what would be the fee rate of that transaction? Definitely bigger than 1 sat/vB, so lower fees could be used instead. But let's calculate it more precisely:

Code:

decoderawtransaction 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
{
  "txid": "afb70fdb4eec11c48b98265dde2378eae22a360803b53e72eb2f1254eb71e2b7",
  "hash": "afb70fdb4eec11c48b98265dde2378eae22a360803b53e72eb2f1254eb71e2b7",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 676,
  "vsize": 676,
  "weight": 2704,
  "locktime": 0,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "badc0dedbadc0dedbadc0dedbadc0dedbadc0dedbadc0dedbadc0dedbadc0ded",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "",
        "hex": ""
      },
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.00000745,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 a5fdb677ed8f22e8e079a5defb76d7b82e381956",
        "desc": "addr(bc1q5h7mvald3u3w3cre5h00kakhhqhrsx2krqwv8a)#ty8qz7ge",
        "hex": "0014a5fdb677ed8f22e8e079a5defb76d7b82e381956",
        "address": "bc1q5h7mvald3u3w3cre5h00kakhhqhrsx2krqwv8a",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.01881554,
      "n": 1,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 d1f4893bc4e50b4c45839993471e6cbb85d5f622 OP_EQUAL",
        "desc": "addr(3LqA6JN8KBDr5gDEisza4Ro1Fev12digYm)#y6yp2td8",
        "hex": "a914d1f4893bc4e50b4c45839993471e6cbb85d5f62287",
        "address": "3LqA6JN8KBDr5gDEisza4Ro1Fev12digYm",
        "type": "scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00670214,
      "n": 2,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 c9009c64758774c81b1ea9e11f6c5dc9bdb343857217384725510444fe2449a3",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qeyqfcer4sa6vsxc748s37mzaex7mxsu9wgtns3e92yzyfl3yfx3s0hymer)#a7qgftal",
        "hex": "0020c9009c64758774c81b1ea9e11f6c5dc9bdb343857217384725510444fe2449a3",
        "address": "bc1qeyqfcer4sa6vsxc748s37mzaex7mxsu9wgtns3e92yzyfl3yfx3s0hymer",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.02208816,
      "n": 3,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 3461203f78f37a7911fe48f2782d6f0108707116",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qx3sjq0mc7da8jy07fre8stt0qyy8qugklzsdpe)#kx8y7fry",
        "hex": "00143461203f78f37a7911fe48f2782d6f0108707116",
        "address": "bc1qx3sjq0mc7da8jy07fre8stt0qyy8qugklzsdpe",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00858241,
      "n": 4,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 73356490eb9c4e2762cf69b89c1449212a45e3b0 OP_EQUAL",
        "desc": "addr(3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg)#7wxr38c2",
        "hex": "a91473356490eb9c4e2762cf69b89c1449212a45e3b087",
        "address": "3CCBbQMpGfrY1sk9qWQmBs89FjWHt2DHFg",
        "type": "scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00689148,
      "n": 5,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 22a7d753af245e901a2216c3ea70a18e351e62885007448a14bbf53c171ce3e7",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qy2naw5a0y30fqx3zzmp75u9p3c63uc5g2qr5fzs5h06nc9cuu0nsj8dzmw)#e5ma6zhc",
        "hex": "002022a7d753af245e901a2216c3ea70a18e351e62885007448a14bbf53c171ce3e7",
        "address": "bc1qy2naw5a0y30fqx3zzmp75u9p3c63uc5g2qr5fzs5h06nc9cuu0nsj8dzmw",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.01025691,
      "n": 6,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 57d78bc08954ac6485fb0da5bf43f7fd2aa1204e",
        "desc": "addr(bc1q2ltchsyf2jkxfp0mpkjm7slhl542zgzwfkehqn)#4rdsys35",
        "hex": "001457d78bc08954ac6485fb0da5bf43f7fd2aa1204e",
        "address": "bc1q2ltchsyf2jkxfp0mpkjm7slhl542zgzwfkehqn",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00724814,
      "n": 7,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 dcc7804ef0941b9ddf6305ad57d733ed0494c803a48584060063e3a5890b7e2a",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qmnrcqnhsjsdemhmrqkk404ena5zffjqr5jzcgpsqv036tzgt0c4q2pjdsl)#sh5tl5jf",
        "hex": "0020dcc7804ef0941b9ddf6305ad57d733ed0494c803a48584060063e3a5890b7e2a",
        "address": "bc1qmnrcqnhsjsdemhmrqkk404ena5zffjqr5jzcgpsqv036tzgt0c4q2pjdsl",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00284350,
      "n": 8,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 22836b38685f924423da666084568789a5ef0e98",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qy2pkkwrgt7fygg76vesgg4583xj77r5cxnrtgf)#uh534mad",
        "hex": "001422836b38685f924423da666084568789a5ef0e98",
        "address": "bc1qy2pkkwrgt7fygg76vesgg4583xj77r5cxnrtgf",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00529145,
      "n": 9,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 9631246b7fe1c2fe43054276f5bc43fc52999cfc",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qjccjg6mlu8p0usc9gfm0t0zrl3ffn88u3fd44k)#5ymfckj9",
        "hex": "00149631246b7fe1c2fe43054276f5bc43fc52999cfc",
        "address": "bc1qjccjg6mlu8p0usc9gfm0t0zrl3ffn88u3fd44k",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00706329,
      "n": 10,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 407e60562a4864c803c62658fe1ce248133d350bddf7c76aef3923c18f4867ca",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qgplxq432fpjvsq7xyev0u88zfqfn6dgtmhmuw6h08y3urr6gvl9qux4s8e)#ahhq5azk",
        "hex": "0020407e60562a4864c803c62658fe1ce248133d350bddf7c76aef3923c18f4867ca",
        "address": "bc1qgplxq432fpjvsq7xyev0u88zfqfn6dgtmhmuw6h08y3urr6gvl9qux4s8e",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00702086,
      "n": 11,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 4408d51af33f733d4dcca41acb7117da5c33e4b10380d02cedaf6e63b7d8ccb0",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qgsyd2xhn8aen6nwv5sdvkughmfwr8e93qwqdqt8d4ahx8d7cejcq7tn3mz)#25ufm5vw",
        "hex": "00204408d51af33f733d4dcca41acb7117da5c33e4b10380d02cedaf6e63b7d8ccb0",
        "address": "bc1qgsyd2xhn8aen6nwv5sdvkughmfwr8e93qwqdqt8d4ahx8d7cejcq7tn3mz",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00678004,
      "n": 12,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 a9954bf1ffb401bad98c712d811135bdfb02ccba",
        "desc": "addr(bc1q4x25hu0lksqm4kvvwykczyf4hhas9n96jfglpq)#w7xt3w9k",
        "hex": "0014a9954bf1ffb401bad98c712d811135bdfb02ccba",
        "address": "bc1q4x25hu0lksqm4kvvwykczyf4hhas9n96jfglpq",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00691875,
      "n": 13,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 ffe81d262b2339db07a4beeadf594fbeb051cbcc89681220b8947ac0798b43dd",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qll5p6f3tyvuakpayhm4d7k20h6c9rj7v395pyg9cj3avq7vtg0ws093yah)#zrp2xtzm",
        "hex": "0020ffe81d262b2339db07a4beeadf594fbeb051cbcc89681220b8947ac0798b43dd",
        "address": "bc1qll5p6f3tyvuakpayhm4d7k20h6c9rj7v395pyg9cj3avq7vtg0ws093yah",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00663339,
      "n": 14,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 67408373bacf69b9e3583b2cc08dfc7b55edbce1e376d912c6a0c030fb563e9b",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qvaqgxua6ea5mnc6c8vkvpr0u0d27m08pudmdjykx5rqrp76k86dseygf89)#r67596xd",
        "hex": "002067408373bacf69b9e3583b2cc08dfc7b55edbce1e376d912c6a0c030fb563e9b",
        "address": "bc1qvaqgxua6ea5mnc6c8vkvpr0u0d27m08pudmdjykx5rqrp76k86dseygf89",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00645767,
      "n": 15,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 44d2bf007e64be73bef2eccacf4d7cc0e08be97c6a2d7dbdce352ad858e4f00e",
        "desc": "addr(bc1qgnft7qr7vjl880hjan9v7ntucrsgh6tudgkhm0wwx54dsk8y7q8qyc3yr8)#nwput6q0",
        "hex": "002044d2bf007e64be73bef2eccacf4d7cc0e08be97c6a2d7dbdce352ad858e4f00e",
        "address": "bc1qgnft7qr7vjl880hjan9v7ntucrsgh6tudgkhm0wwx54dsk8y7q8qyc3yr8",
        "type": "witness_v0_scripthash"
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.38109263,
      "n": 16,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "0 8cdeafb3bd8b22771990bd790b55213362ed752a",
        "desc": "addr(bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh)#8cg6cyl5",
        "hex": "00148cdeafb3bd8b22771990bd790b55213362ed752a",
        "address": "bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh",
        "type": "witness_v0_keyhash"
      }
    }
  ]
}

This is how the unsigned version would look like. Then, by adding a single, batched multisig, it would take around 700 vB, which means 700 satoshis for everything. Assuming that multisig will be explicitly pushed on-chain, it would take for example 20 public keys and signatures, which means 25 vB per key, so 500 vB more. Which means around 1200 vB total, instead of over 2600 vB. Which means at least 2x cheaper.

And all of that, if you assume the worst case, where everything is pushed on-chain, but only placed in the witness section. However, if not only you, but also your recipients would use multisig, then it would be all about changing the information, related to "who owns what". Which means, that a single from-multisig-to-multisig transaction is enough, to update the whole subnetwork, no matter if there are 10 or 100 users behind it. And one Taproot-to-Taproot transaction could cost 111 satoshis, if there is one input, one output, and one signature, that can cover everything.

How do we know that is your transaction and not one you just found on a block explorer?

It doesn't matter. Batching saves fees. It is just an example of what can be done to optimize things.

I would guess that over 95% of monetary transactions with Segwit look like this: 1-2 inputs and 1-2 outputs.

And because they are not batched, they are processed as-is. However, if transactions flying in mempools would provide enough information, to be combined with other transactions, then they could be batched into a single transaction, which would handle a lot of users, and that could be much cheaper, than it currently is.

[PepeLapiu]

And now, do you want to disable Taproot entirely, and force these users paying 111 satoshis or 12k satoshis, to pay 34k satoshis, and use separate coins, just because you want to block scripts, which are too complex for you to understand?

So you are saying that monetary users need to use complex scripts and coin join into order to keep up with ordinal spammers. Correct?

And what would prevent ordinal spammers to get into the coin join and save even more than the already 75% discount they are getting?

How do we know that is your transaction and not one you just found on a block explorer?
Can you sign a message from bc1qrs8s7jvmyp5s4677udme6nt0cl4xuuqe2aj8m2

Sure thing. But I don't have access to my laptop for at least a few weeks as I'm away from home. How about I spend 1000 sats from the change address which is bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh

Would that satisfy you?

I don't think it's that important anyways. ertil is just wasting time with that stupid idea.

"You could just do a coinjoin and save as much as the spammers do."

Okay, so what would stop the spammers to do a coinjoin and save ever more than they already do, fool?

[ertil]

So you are saying that monetary users need to use complex scripts and coin join into order to keep up with ordinal spammers. Correct?

It doesn't matter, if you push signatures and public keys, or non-consensus data. Those who use batching will always have an edge over the rest, who doesn't. To get a Segwit discount, you have to put your signatures and public keys into the witness space. If you put it instead into the UTXO set, then obviously you will pay more.

And what would prevent ordinal spammers to get into the coin join and save even more than the already 75% discount they are getting?

They could easily save 99%, if they would commit to their data, instead of pushing them on-chain. And they already pay much more, than they could, only because they believe, that their data will be stored forever. One of the reasons, why Core does nothing with the spam, is because this is a false belief, and can be changed in the future implementation, for example if more people will switch to models like utreexo.

Because in practice, there is no guarantee, that future Initial Blockchain Download will allow you to explore all historical transactions. Forcing every full node to process everything since 2009 is still doable in 2026, but I won't bet it would be the case in 2109 or 2209 as well. And at some point, things would be set in stone, and it would be no longer possible, to reorg for example more than 210,000 blocks. For many BIPs, even much smaller amount of confirmations was enough, to add some exceptions, instead of reorging a lot of blocks, which would allow enforcing some fixes from the Genesis Block.

Also, for pruned nodes, everything with 288 or more confirmations, is considered as permanently confirmed. If you launch for example 300 blocks chain reorganization, then it may break a lot of pruned nodes, because they will have to re-download the data they already pruned. Which may corrupt their database, and then, they will need to re-download everything.

[PepeLapiu]

And what would prevent ordinal spammers to get into the coin join and save even more than the already 75% discount they are getting?

They could easily save 99%, if they would commit to their data, instead of pushing them on-chain.

So there you go. Monetary users would pay less, and spammers would pay even less. Which leaves us in the real world that we are today.

Spammers pay right now half as much as monetary users for the same amount of data. So again, if spammers pay half as much, who are the fees filtering?

You know the answer. I know you know the answer. You just don't want to admit we were lied to and gaslit by core for the last 5 years.

[ABCbits]

And what would prevent ordinal spammers to get into the coin join and save even more than the already 75% discount they are getting?

It's impossible to have more than 75% witness discount, even on theory. Applying CoinJoin idea to ordinal doesn't make sense either, since their current doesn't split arbitary data into multiple inputs on same TX. With ordinal, you can push big arbitary data with only single input. For example. see this TX https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae.

You know the answer. I know you know the answer. You just don't want to admit we were lied to and gaslit by core for the last 5 years.

You talk as if Ordinal exist more than 5 years ago. But in reality, there's no such protocol (that aim to add arbitary data on Bitcoin blockchain) exist 5 years ago on Bitcoin mainnet and AFAIK nobody anticipate it'll be misused in large scale. Even on this forum, only one member question lack of stricness on Taproot, What's the reason for not being strict about Taproot witness program size?.

[PepeLapiu]

You talk as if Ordinal exist more than 5 years ago.

Nope, I'm fully aware that ordinals started 4-5 years ago. And irdinaks were in fact pretty much the first manifestation of the ongoing spam attack Sure, some spam existed before ordinals, some people posted random messages, bible verses, documents, and the such..But it wasn't really a problem until ordinals started and core started to claim the fees are the only filter and anything else would be censorship.

But in reality, there's no such protocol (that aim to add arbitary data on Bitcoin blockchain) exist 5 years ago on Bitcoin mainnet and AFAIK nobody anticipate it'll be misused in large scale.

Jesus!

- Core did nothing to combat spam in the last 5 years, rejecting spam filters, and going as far as blowing up and existing spam filter.

- Core doesn't even acknowledge that there is a spam problem, referring to spam as "user cases we have today" and referring to spammers not as attackers or grifters, but at "users who need to upload data".

- Big spam pools are making use of spamware like Slipstream and LibreRelay expressly designed to push more spam on chain.

- The UTXO set is made up of over 40% of spam dust UTXOs. And blocks currently are made up of around 50% spam.

And you think it's all going away?
You think the problem is going to just vanish on it's own volution?
Wanna buy a bridge? Fresh paint on it, a real bargain!

[CoreRulezKnotsAreFulez]

How do we know that is your transaction and not one you just found on a block explorer?
Can you sign a message from bc1qrs8s7jvmyp5s4677udme6nt0cl4xuuqe2aj8m2

Sure thing. But I don't have access to my laptop for at least a few weeks as I'm away from home. How about I spend 1000 sats from the change address which is bc1q3n02lvaa3v38wxvsh4usk4fpxd3w6af2cn75gh

Would that satisfy you?

I don't think it's that important anyways. ertil is just wasting time with that stupid idea.

"You could just do a coinjoin and save as much as the spammers do."

Okay, so what would stop the spammers to do a coinjoin and save ever more than they already do, fool?

If you can send from the the change address you should be able to sign a message from the sending address.
Laptop or not as the change address is part of the same wallet.

I just got back from 2026 BTC Conference in LV. There was no support for 110. No miners, no exchanges, no pools. There were some people pushing it and they all got laughed at or ignored. Nobody cares for it. Best way I heard it was more or less let them put the money into mine a couple of hundred blocks showing 110 support over the next few months then I'll look at it again. But now I just see social media and nodes both of which are just about zero cost. Even back in 2017 fork the people on both sides were spending a fortune to prove their point, here 110 is just talking.
Not the exact wording but close enough.

[PrivacyG]

But I have a distinct feeling that you are not interested in doing any of this. Because what it's not that you don't want to be annoyed, it's not that you don't want to read my posts. What you are really looking for is to prevent others from hearing what I'm saying.

And I thought I was paranoid.

How can I prevent others from 'hearing' what you are saying by giving you more attention?  I keep tripping over your name every few days and it is always a different Topic published by you.  You started 5 Topics on this subject this month alone and you keep saying the same thing over and over again.  No body is stopping you.

You are even allowed to promote your own Forum in your Signature, you said before that support for BIP-110 is being actively hidden and deleted but there is zero activity on your Forum, only recent spam.

Your distinct feeling is wrong.  You are looking however to enforce your idea on the rest of us that only you are right.  Unless someone says you are right, it is Censorship.  Most of us collectively believe you are wrong.  Deal with it.  To me, Fees are still working as they were designed.  Some times it does not feel fair, but at the end of the day this is Bitcoin.  You want to be first, you pay.

-----

Because in practice, there is no guarantee, that future Initial Blockchain Download will allow you to explore all historical transactions. Forcing every full node to process everything since 2009 is still doable in 2026, but I won't bet it would be the case in 2109 or 2209 as well. And at some point, things would be set in stone, and it would be no longer possible, to reorg for example more than 210,000 blocks. For many BIPs, even much smaller amount of confirmations was enough, to add some exceptions, instead of reorging a lot of blocks, which would allow enforcing some fixes from the Genesis Block.

I can not be the only one expecting that technology 83 years from now will be evolved enough to easily process a full Initial Blockchain Download and we will have at LEAST Petabyte sized disks instead of what we have today.  I agree about the impossibility to reorganize hundreds of thousands of Blocks but I can not say it would be a bad thing to keep going with the full Blockchain instead of snipping its tail every few decades.