Nostr Archives

@c9b19ffc…1e108965 @fdd5e8f6…a73464a7 @74ffc51c…1d6d1856 @Super Testnet @7b3f7803…8912e968 and others. What about solving op_return with nested PoW? In this case all tx would be mini blocks, with difficulty scaled down from the network difficulty and then multiplied by the bytes in op_return. It should effectively scale the cost of larger arbitrary data in op_return by making miners have to choose if the fee is worth the PoW for the tx and scale the cost of larger blobs.

💬 9 replies

Replies (9)

Super Testnet165d ago

seems like your goal is to make op_returns cost extra for their creators, and I suspect there's a simpler way to do that: create a rule that says transactions containing op_returns must have a feerate X% larger than the average in that block

0000 sats

imp0stor165d ago

That is fair, but what I am trying to do is make it more work to include it, so hashrate/energy is required to do it, meaning it has to cover electricity and be desirable to mine. When it approaches the max size, it becomes nearly impractical.

0000 sats

imp0stor164d ago

Updated version: 📝 42ec0c06…

0000 sats

imp0stor165d ago

I want them to be more expensive at compute and block template construction, you have to mine the TX to the specified difficulty. So whoever is constructing a block template has to put that work in before even mining the block itself, It would, in effect, lower the difficulty of the network too, since some hash is diverted to block constructions and would make the incentive to mine the most monetary based tx that have little or no op_return in them over bloated non-monetary txs.

0000 sats

imp0stor165d ago

I took the idea from Satoshi, it is what he did, but for blocks. 😎

0000 sats

imp0stor165d ago

I games it out a bit with grok, but came up with this: Here’s your Noster post-drafted raw, just paste: Proposing Nested PoW: Electricity-priced spam defense, no caps, no filters. Satoshi’s block rule inverted-every transaction carries its own work, optional paths, sender or miner picks who burns watts. Core idea: start with micro-difficulty-one millionth of block target-so normal sends cost nothing real. Then, for OP_RETURN data, each extra byte past four scales difficulty by 1.3x linear: 10 bytes? 2.4x base, sub-second. 100 bytes? 39x, two seconds on home rig. 10 kilobytes? 390x-five minutes. 100 kilobytes? 3,900x-thirty minutes on twin S19s, power bill hits five bucks if solo. No impossibility-just real money baked into heat. Two ways in: 1) You pre-mine it yourself: grind nonce client-side, submit solved. Pool checks, done-your electricity, your choice. 2) Leave it unsolved: anyone-home miner, pool, watcher-solves it, RBF-submits with fee bump to themselves. They get rewarded; you pay later. Decentralizes hash again: old GPUs could nibble fees mining proofs instead of dust. Replace-by-fee keeps priority fair-whoever adds value keeps it. No protocol fork-patch mempool, add nonce flag, validate on arrival. Network tunes base every 2016 blocks. Result? Spam dies quietly: timestamp guy pays pocket change, data hoarder pays rent. Filters stay alive, blocks stay lean, hash flows where fees do. Not bans-markets. Let’s talk. Sound right?

0000 sats

imp0stor165d ago

This may even help solve mining decentralization as people can earn on smaller PoW bounties and build hashrate to a block solving level over time. We could see old miners increase in value solving Tx level blocks to the mempool, and this idea likely has some holes in it as I am sure some of this needs more work or just does not "work that way"... I am trying open up collaboration on this solve and make a way that works elegantly. I wonder what we could do here to make PoW solve this.

0000 sats