pull down to refresh

Fighting "spam" transactions at the mempool policy level is ineffective
If it's ineffective, why is the PR to remove the policy?
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 20h
Mempool policy, especially a mempool policy adopted by a minority of nodes, is ineffective at preventing other users with demand for transactions that do not adhere to the policy from being mined. This is demonstrated by the 20+ new OP_RETURN outputs in excess of the limit. As about 18% of the hashrate mine transactions with oversized OP_RETURN outputs, anyone who wants to send one will see it reliably mined if they manage to get it to one of the corresponding miners. They just cannot get it reliably in the next block.
This means that:
  • OP_RETURN outputs above the limit get reliably mined and end up in the blockchain
  • Large OP_RETURN outputs cannot be preferred over storing data in fake public key hashes or fake pubkeys if the transaction is time sensitive
  • Only mining pools financially benefit that offer direct submission and have broken rank from the common network-wide mempool policy
  • Block propagation is slowed down on many blocks due to nodes not having all transactions referenced the compact block announcement
So, you don’t get the potential upsides of allowing larger OP_RETURN outputs, but you get additional mining centralization pressures from slower block propagation, and financial incentive to build out direct submission.
At this point, it seems better to make these transactions available to all miners, so at least the miners benefit fairly from the additionally available fees, and so that parties who pollute the UTXO set with unspendable outputs carrying data can at least be encouraged to use OP_RETURN instead as a less harmful option.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @jgbtc 20h
He thinks it's bad that spammers have to pay typically higher fees out of band. This seems to be the common argument given in favor of the PR.
In reality this is a direct result of the spam filter working. Spamming should be expensive as possible.
They take the desired outcome and twist that to be the reason why we should get rid of filters.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 16h
This is not an accurate representation of any argument that I have seen made.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 13h
You made the argument above. You said it's not fair that some miners benefit from high fees from out of band transactions, i.e. the spam transactions that exceed the op_return limit.
"At this point, it seems better to make these transactions available to all miners, so at least the miners benefit fairly from the additionally available fees..."
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 9h
The point is that direct submission and private relay result in a subset of the miners building blocks from a bigger pool of transactions, because they have access to transactions other miners don't know about. Not that the out of band fees are too high.
reply