80
szarka
80ba3b7745d73bf269d5dad1e9952f3eff851d3f16fc5efb1f052889dea18705
Geek. Bitcoiner. Economist.
Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

One problem that people face is that they box themselves into narrative corners and echo chambers.

"Not your keys not your coins" is a good one-sentence explainer to tell people to be careful about custodians, especially in such a nascent industry. It's powerful and memorable. Couldn't be said better.

But then some people take that to mean nobody should ever use any custodial service under any circumstances ever. You got $200 in a custodial Lightning app because it's faster and easier than alternatives? You've failed the purity test. You're in a developing country and want to save $100 worth of bitcoin? Better do it on-chain, otherwise it's not yours!

But then some of the same people resist a block size increase to keep the network decentralized (a good thing, imo) and also say that bitcoin will fix the world (I think it can).

But while all reasonable statements on their own, the issue is that statements 1, 2, and 3 don't add up when taken to their extreme. It has been written about since the time of Nakamoto and Finney on Bitcoin Talk forums that Bitcoin would need to scale in layers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

So any statement about "Not your keys not your coins" has to be paired with an alternative solution, or a spectrum of alternatives. What if someone can't fit into the one of the only tens of millions of on-chain transactions per month? What if $35 fees is high for the $200 in bitcoin they want to save?

Is holding your bitcoin on an 11-of-15 multisig (Liquid) okay, in exchange for lower fees, faster block times, better privacy, and some additional features? Depending on the amount, I would say yes. It has trade-offs, though, which have to be made clear.

What about a Chaumian mint? What if an app lets a community in South Africa set up a 5-of-9 multisig run by well-known people in the community who would face consequences if they break trust? And the same app can let a smaller community in Guatemala set up a 4-of-7 multisig? And a bigger multi-country 6-of-11 multisig can be set up as well? It's private, interacts with Lightning as seamlessly as Wallet of Satoshi, and can make in-person payments even when the internet is out briefly. Plus, it can be customized via open source add-on modules by the community running the specific mint so that it can also store private data for users, monitor reserves, monitor health of the multisig keys, run applications like Chat GPT payable in bitcoin per usage, run private DMs and group chats, run apps that show you local merchants that accept bitcoin, etc. And what if a user could, within the same app, seamlessly spread their funds out among a handful of different mints that they know pretty well to avoid having all of their eggs in one basket, and then pull into self-custody when above a certain amount?

Maybe there will be more softforks in the future. More flexible scripting to allow more share-ability of UTXOs, for example. But those require consensus, and they tend to come with some trade-offs or code risks, and so they take time.

Bitcoin is an engineering marvel. But it's not magic. It has limitations, and it has a spectrum of solutions for those limitations at any given time. The best solutions solve multiple problems at once: they add scalability, they add speed, they reduce fees, they add privacy, and they add flexibility/programmability all at once, while still being more distributed than trusting some centralized KYC entity.

Bitcoin is peer-to-peer open source money. But it's not infinitely scalable on the base chain. If it were greatly scaled up on the base chain to fit everyone, then only institutions would be able to run nodes and it would be greatly centralized and thus useless. So the solution, known from the start of the Bitcoin Talk forums, is to build additional peer-to-peer open source layers on top of it, allowing for a range of transaction sizes, a range of speeds, a range of privacy, and a range of programmability, all to serve different users' needs, and without compromising the decentralization and security of the base chain. That's the type of statement that needs to be provided along with "not your keys not your coins" for the full context to make sense.

That's a lot more than six words.

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=1080x627&blurhash=i25%7Ds.IW00%25MROf%24obD%25WUIUn%23IUxZo%23xuxus%3Bof00Rk%7EqIpt7R.j%5Dxvj%5Dx_%25Mt9s%2CD%25RhD%25RiWB00bc-%3AE1-pRkt7s%3Af6&x=c3928befad16f61f8fa8fbc9e002164c092a76b81c159b38242d84247520f014

Who hurt you, Semisol?

Went dancing last night, just woke up too late to attend. Maybe next time…

Fees are currently 0% if you're using their software, though. (Confusing in the interface, but they basically refund the 2% fee.)

TBH, I wish they'd stuck with sharing the luck. It's more fun that way.

NGL, will probably also buy myself a couple of bitaxes for Xmas. Everyone likes new toys in their Xmas stocking, right? πŸ˜‚

Well, once they prove it, I'll send my hash back their way. But right now they've squandered all the goodwill their launch generated. Pretty amazing feat, really.

Replying to Avatar jimmysong

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.

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

https://mempool.space/tx/c5471c2eaab7ab72b056718313ad8cccf154e415bebf01fbb1fd9e795ed376cb

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

Well, now I feel old.

Thanks for the response!! I had the same experience except with Nicehash. I really like ViaBTC. Took me 2 seconds to set up. The UI is great and just get consistent payouts. I think you can also go Solo on ViaBTC (https://www.viabtc.com/pricing) but have enjoyed the steady sats on PPS+. Im just an S9 miner for fun but seeing my hash, payouts, seeing profit calculator for different miners, viewing overal hash stats for BTC all online or in the app is pretty sweet. Probably will stick with them for now!

Good to hear! I've got an S9 space heater coming soon. Will probably solo mine with that; may even experiment with making my own block templates, but there are a couple of other options out there that also look good.

May put some hash on ViaBTC, but my thinking is that I would rather help a smaller pool stay viable instead of making one of the top pools even bigger. FWIW, with my ~100 TH. ;)