Author: Billy Tetrud 2022-02-16 02:54:28
Published on: 2022-02-16T02:54:28+00:00
The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list includes technical details related to sponsor transactions and reorgability in Bitcoin. Jeremy Rubin explains that sponsors should not be monotone due to technical reasons that require the maintenance of an additional permanent TX-Index, which would make Bitcoin's state grow at a much worse rate. The sponsors proposal is a change from Epsilon-Strong Reorgability to Epsilon-Weak Reorgability, and Jeremy argues that there is no functional reason to rely on Strongness when Bitcoin's reorgability is already not perfect.Russell O'Connor raises a concern about the validity of transactions becoming invalid later on unless the inputs are double-spent during a 6 block reorg, which would affect all its descendants too. The current consensus threshold for transactions to become invalid is a 100 block reorg, and Russell promises to personally build a wallet that always creates transactions on the verge of becoming invalid should anyone ever implement a feature that violates this tx validity principle. Jeremy responds that the issue Suhas raised was with a variant of sponsors trying to address a second criticism, not sponsors itself, which is secure against this. Jeremy defines different properties related to reorgability in Bitcoin, such as Strong Reorgability, Simple Existential Reorgability, Epsilon-Strong Reorgability, Epsilon: Simple Existential Reorgability, and Perfect Reorgability. He notes that Perfect Reorgability doesn't exist in Bitcoin because unconfirmed transactions can be double spent, which invalidates descendants. He concludes that Epsion-Weak Reorgability seems to be a sufficient property, and he asks if anyone disagrees with that.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T16:34:29.574053+00:00