Oddbean new post about login | logout Congratulations on block three to all OCEAN miners 🎉. The miner used the standard template which filters spam and as a result block 823129 included ~1400 more real financial transactions that otherwise would have been left out in the cold. This is the cleanest block #Bitcoin has seen in ages.
One could also say it excluded 1400 transactions that were willing to pay a higher fee than the 1400 that were included.
For what reason were they considered spam?
Because they include extra data with hexadecimal representing jpegs, saving a lot of bom-transaction related data in the blockchain, therefore in the nodes. Nodes have the configuration to limit this extra data, the standard configuration it 80bytes, but there is bug that this kind of transactions are exploiting, that allows them to go way way over any configuration in the node. That bug was fixed in the Knots node software, and the standard template os configured with very low extra data limit, which is keeping transactions exploiting the bug out of the block. If those transactions sent inscriptions within the limit configured in the knots nodes, they would pass normally.
They just need to mine their own blocks then, nothing wrong with that. Whoever mined the block has the right to put the transactions he wants inside it. If money was the only incentive the transactions would be in. Glad money is not the only thing driving people’s decisions.
Is this effective with only 0.1% of total hash?
Every block helps a little. The more OCEAN grows, the better
All transactions are real transactions. nostr:nevent1qqsqyc95s9gztpnpakp5ljc9zslf0txas6eu4lcux8yaeuu20vn7fsgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyqpdnat8dlluxw0la9xl4vuta03pecghcmc4p8vey25z6320ggx6yqcyqqqqqqg7a2595
Yep, you just need to keep extra data out of your transactions to make it pass the node relays and get into a standard template in OCEAN. The transaction part of it would work fine. If you want to insert extra data with your transaction, just wait another block.
Scenario A: A State actor, by way of the money printer, prints infinite amounts of fiat, and uses it to pay mining pools to exclusively mine empty blocks. Block space available for economic bitcoin transactions evaporates, and for many, bitcoin becomes unusable. Scenario B: A State actor, by way of the money printer, prints infinite amounts of fiat, and uses it to pay mining pools to fill blocks full of jpegs… In terms of functional outcome, what is the difference between these two scenarios?
Assuming scenario B occurs to the same extent as scenario A (I don't believe it has... yet.), there is no difference. This type of attack seems plausible, but are there reasons it would not be feasible/likely? However, should it occur, is there a defense against this attack that does not rely on miners making a financial sacrifice? I'm afraid that defense will not be sufficient.
Great to see trustless payouts churning their way! Here are some musings on trustless payouts: https://habla.news/u/optout@nostrplebs.com/1703741956945
I'm proud that I took part in this. Waiting for Lightning withdrawals cause I will not live enough to witness my rewards withdrawal :) https://void.cat/d/Sq59Mz9jG2VcXiwZAQRzhN.webp
