Bare Multisig Outputs

-----------------------

Blocks are getting filled with bare multisig outputs and it's an obvious troll from people that hate Bitcoin. Let me explain.

Multisig currently can be done in many ways, but before p2sh (BIP0013), the only way to do multisig was through putting the many pubkeys on-chain. As ECDSA doesn't really let you aggregate keys, outputs had to specify something like "3-of-5 of these pubkeys." The normal UTXOs have the following number of bytes:

p2pkh:25

p2sh:23

p2wpkh:22

p2wsh:34

p2tr:34

By contrast the n in the k-of-n bare multisig determines the number of bytes and it's 5 + 34 * n (my math might be off, but around there). So for 3-of-5, it's upwards of 170 bytes. But that's using compressed keys. For uncompressed keys, you it's 5 + 66 * n or 335 bytes+, and worse, you can put in illegitimate uncompressed keys (keys that are provably have no private key) to add data to the chain

Why does this matter? Because these bytes stay in the UTXO set, which is what Bitcoin software optimizes for because that's how you validate that a transaction is a not double spend and satisfies the conditions of the smart contract that locked it.

What's worse, if the pubkeys are unspendable (uncompressed keys that are not real points on the secp256k1 curve), then they'll *never* be pruned. So the UTXO set grows larger and requires more resources for your typical node runner.

Interestingly, this was how the whitepaper was embedded into the Bitcoin blockchain by putting pieces of the whitepaper pdf in 64 byte chunks through uncompressed pubkeys. Luke's Eligius pool was one of the first to ban such transactions because they were clearly bloating not just the blockchain, but the UTXO set.

That's what these trolls are doing. They're adding to the UTXO set that's not easily prunable, though now, I'm guessing some people will add pruning for UTXOs with multisig outputs that don't have any legitimate keys.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Are the pubkeys on these troll transactions not valid points on the secp256k1 curve?

Isn’t this VERY worrisome?!

iF tHe pROtOCoL aLLoWs iT, iT mUSt bE VaLid aCtIVItY

Seriously, it is not a sustainable attack model, since this is actually more expensive than inscriptions. It might also just be someone trying to prove a point.

The point being, there are worse things than inscriptions and similar nonsense that at least doesn't bloat the UTXO set.

tHerE iS nO nONsENsE oNLy trAnSaCTioNs wILLinG tO pAY tHE sECuRitY bUDgeT

If they're unspendable then they can safely be pruned immediately

This one looks like it might be legit, except… who consolidates 70 P2SH utxos at 327 sat/vb?

https://mempool.space/tx/c5471c2eaab7ab72b056718313ad8cccf154e415bebf01fbb1fd9e795ed376cb

Game theory. People that don’t want to be disrupted trying to poke holes in bitcoin. Best team wins 🤷‍♂️

(Speculation). Could the trolling be a psyop attempt to push for a change where the cure is worse than the disease? Or one of many that eventually frustrates Bitcoiners enough to make a change that has devastating long term consequences. Since they can’t destroy/maim Bitcoin from the outside, the only possible route is from the inside.

🎯

👍

I just want to save money

Pruning is a slippery slope.

Whether you think that are illegitimate or not, they are valid bitcoin transactions.