Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 05:07:49 -0700
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "'Anonymous User' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <a8eac5f2-b85a-434f-868e-eba7fd2558c6@achow101.com>
References: <Zpk7EYgmlgPP3Y9D@petertodd.org>
 <18fc443d-c347-4a84-94fe-81308ae20b76n@googlegroups.com>
 <Zpm73WHBNIkkIT0Y@petertodd.org>
 <CALZpt+HJvBXM_geK7JC8umrt1goq8bc+pnY0mk+o+r_+bjrtew@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zpp6U00Mp7Z/bOej@petertodd.org>
 <4d950527-4430-49f2-8e38-3755bc58e301n@googlegroups.com>
 <4f7eddff-9e2d-4beb-bcc6-832584cb939d@achow101.com>
 <2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn@googlegroups.com>
 <a8eac5f2-b85a-434f-868e-eba7fd2558c6@achow101.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: A "Free" Relay Attack Taking Advantage of The
 Lack of Full-RBF In Core
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_342116_216611184.1721613592246"
Reply-To: Anonymous User <situo@berkeley.edu>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_342116_216611184.1721613592246
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_342117_6754146.1721613592246"

------=_Part_342117_6754146.1721613592246
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I came from some twitter discussion so I think this thread is trending. I=
=20
think we need to figure a way out onward.=20

Here is a last resort solution by launching this attack in production. We=
=20
should avoid making this last resort solution, but from what Peter Todd=20
said, below seems completely practical.
Please treat it as story reading and do not overthink that this is the way=
=20
to go.

- a few people in the list form a group and fork bitcoin core and apply the=
=20
patch from Peter Todd
- work with a few miners to massively perform the free relay attacks and=20
other mempool related attacks in an effort to force mining pools and miners=
=20
to switch from bitcoin core into the fork in order for their nodes to=20
continue running in a healthy manner
- build a free service for file transfer or VPN taking advantage of rbf in=
=20
the Bitcoin network and make it a public good that millions of users can=20
use, causing most of the mempool transactions to be conflicting (due to=20
different implementations of rbf) and therefore wallets have to eventually=
=20
stop broadcasting transactions to bitcoin core nodes (which could be using=
=20
a completely new list of seed nodes, disabling the existing seed node=20
list), and non-bitcoin-core nodes, in order to have more healthy=20
transaction flows and mempool data sharing, would start node-shopping by=20
disconnecting themselves from bitcoin core nodes and refusing to be their=
=20
peers=20
- core is forced to find a way onward, or the core gives up and archives=20
the bitcoin core repo

The damage is probably just a few days of slower transaction processing,=20
much smaller than the price spike caused by ordinals last year.=20

Democracy starts with people having different opinions that DO NOT need to=
=20
reconcile. So, it is not about how we get different people in this mail=20
list, or the non-public security list, to achieve the same opinions, like=
=20
whether full RBF is needed. It is about how Bitcoin can allow two groups of=
=20
people that have fundamentally different opinions and are unwilling and=20
impossible to reconcile. We can have 5-10 security disclosure mail lists by=
=20
different groups of people, and good-faith vulnerability reporters can=20
choose to exclusively report the bugs to some groups that the reporters=20
feel to be knowledgeable and responsive and, importantly, have the capacity=
=20
and the motivation to work on it.=20

I feel bad for Peter Todd. If I were him, I wouldn't report the bug. I=20
would sell the bug because I got nothing in return, but probably more=20
jealousy or more retaliation for being the only person serious about an=20
issue.=20
Btw, Peter already has a fork.=20

Ethereum has great software development process as well as its ecosystem.=
=20
Smart contracts get heavily audited not because people care about security.=
=20
It is because North Korea has successfully stolen probably hundreds of=20
millions of dollars from different projects and even causing some projects=
=20
to fall apart. This is in essence similar to, if one day Bitcoin has a=20
memory exploit issue that causes a massive amount of miners to lose coins=
=20
that they own, and the network again needs to decide whether to do a hard=
=20
fork, that is the time when we will be discussing if stopping development=
=20
in C/C++ and limiting Bitcoin core development to Rust and Rust only are=20
the way forward.

Thanks,
Anonymous user, as the floppy disk guy recommends this might be the best=20
way to engage in the mailing list onward

I strongly encourage people to try engaging in this email list anonymously.=
=20
It feels great to say things out loud without worrying about retaliation on=
=20
unrelated matters. Also, this should be permitted. We still don't know who=
=20
Satoshi is. If I were Satoshi, I probably also wouldn't report a bug I=20
know.=20

On Sunday, July 21, 2024 at 1:49:10=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Ava Chow wrote:

> On 07/20/2024 10:06 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
> > "Naive", as saying this is the _Bitcoin Core_ project list only can onl=
y=20
> > provoke blind
> > spot among the list members if the security issues are either affecting=
=20
> > old part of
> > the codebases that younger members have less experiences with (some=20
> > parts like consensus
> > or block-relay are modified only every 5 years) or novel factors from=
=20
> > upstream or downstream
> > (e.g the internet networking stack or implications on deployed contract=
=20
> > protocols like
> > lightning). On both the former and latter criterias, I think Peter=20
> > overly meets the bar.
>
> Peter was not the only "senior" person on the security list. Obviously I=
=20
> will not disclose non-public information, but certainly there are people=
=20
> on the security list who are just as, if not more, senior than Peter.
>
> Furthermore, the "old parts" still do get changed, and someone who no=20
> longer actively contributes to the project is more likely to be unaware=
=20
> of how the code actually works today, even if they are familiar with=20
> components that change infrequently.
>
> > When you've big sh*t hitting the fan like inflation bugs or level DB=20
> > 2013 unexpected fork you
> > prefer have experts with a decade of experience to collaborate with, an=
d=20
> > sharing the same cultural
> > and ethical norms of the active contributors evaluated by numbers on=20
> > commits on the last single-digit
> > years.
>
> Not being on the list does not preclude him from being consulted if the=
=20
> need arises.
>
> With the two examples you provide, I am not aware of Peter being=20
> actively involved in the resolution of both of those, whereas there are=
=20
> current members of the list who were.
>
>
> In general though, it is not clear to me how it was beneficial to have=20
> Peter on the security list, nor how not having him is directly harmful.=
=20
> In the 2 years that I have been on the security list, I was unaware that=
=20
> Peter was a recipient until shortly before he was removed. My=20
> understanding is that others who have been on the list longer than me=20
> were also unaware.
>
> Ava
>
> >=20
> > I'll repropose Peter admission on the security list mailing list in the=
=20
> > coming weeks by opening an
> > issue on the bitcoin-meta repository, once this current mailing list=20
> > thread has slowed down a bit,
> > or at least the technical analysis has been dissociated from the=20
> > proceedings which have all been
> > bundle in a big message. In my very personal opinion, I still trust mor=
e=20
> > Peter competence and experience
> > than some other people I know who are on the security mailing list.
> >=20
> > All that said I appreciate your answer and I'm satisfied from the=20
> > personal role you've have played
> > in the matter with, and be reassured I'll keep you among the recipient=
=20
> > of future security issues with
> > a potential impact on bitcoin core that I might find or be aware off.
> >=20
> > Best,
> > Antoine
> > ots hash:=20
> db441b51684ad3a6897f67d42c74ccfcb9a4ffed40d4bdbe30a2edd867ccdd54
> >=20
> > Le samedi 20 juillet 2024 =C3=A0 01:50:25 UTC+1, Ava Chow a =C3=A9crit =
:
> >=20
> > On 07/19/2024 07:58 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
> > > As said in one my previous email, I'm still curious about achow101
> > > explaining publicly
> > > why you have been kicked-out of the bitcoin-security mailing
> > list, when
> > > you were certainly
> > > more senior than achow101 in matters of base-layer security
> > issues or
> > > even hard technical
> > > issues like consensus interactions (e.g bip65). I'll re-iterate my
> > > respect towards achow101
> > > as a maintainer from years of collaboration, though this is a topic
> > > worthy of an answer.
> >=20
> > I am not the one that removed Peter from the mailing list, nor do I
> > even
> > have the login(s) to do so.
> >=20
> > There was a discussion amongst several members of the security list
> > about who was on the list, and who should be on the list. Given that
> > the
> > security list is the _Bitcoin Core_ security list, we determined that
> > the people who should be on the list are people who still actively
> > contribute to the project. As Peter Todd no longer actively contribute
> > code nor code review to the project, we decided that it didn't make
> > sense to continue to have him on the list.
> >=20
> > My recollection is that multiple other people were removed from the
> > list
> > for the same reason at the same time.
> >=20
> > Ava
> >=20
> > --=20
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20
> > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=
=20
> > an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com=20
> > <mailto:bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com>.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit=20
> >=20
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2=
f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com=20
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2=
f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter
> >.
>
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_342117_6754146.1721613592246
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I came from some twitter discussion so I think this thread is trending=
. I think we need to figure a way out onward.=C2=A0</div><div><br /></div><=
div>Here is a last resort solution by launching this attack in production. =
We should avoid making this last resort solution, but from what Peter Todd =
said, below seems completely practical.</div><div>Please treat it as story =
reading and do not overthink that this is the way to go.</div><div><br /></=
div><div>- a few people in the list form a group and fork bitcoin core and =
apply the patch from Peter Todd</div><div>- work with a few miners to massi=
vely perform the free relay attacks and other mempool related attacks in an=
 effort to force mining pools and miners to switch from bitcoin core into t=
he fork in order for their nodes to continue running in a healthy manner</d=
iv><div>- build a free service for file transfer or VPN taking advantage of=
 rbf in the Bitcoin network and make it a public good that millions of user=
s can use, causing most of the mempool transactions to be conflicting (due =
to different implementations of rbf) and therefore wallets have to eventual=
ly stop broadcasting transactions to bitcoin core nodes (which could be usi=
ng a completely new list of seed nodes, disabling the existing seed node li=
st), and non-bitcoin-core nodes, in order to have more healthy transaction =
flows and mempool data sharing, would start node-shopping by disconnecting =
themselves from bitcoin core nodes and refusing to be their peers=C2=A0</di=
v><div>- core is forced to find a way onward, or the core gives up and arch=
ives the bitcoin core repo</div><div><br /></div><div>The damage is probabl=
y just a few days of slower transaction processing, much smaller than the p=
rice spike caused by ordinals last year.=C2=A0</div><div><br /></div><div>D=
emocracy starts with people having different opinions that DO NOT need to r=
econcile. So, it is not about how we get different people in this mail list=
, or the non-public security list, to achieve the same opinions, like wheth=
er full RBF is needed. It is about how Bitcoin can allow two groups of peop=
le that have fundamentally different opinions and are unwilling and impossi=
ble to reconcile. We can have 5-10 security disclosure mail lists by differ=
ent groups of people, and good-faith vulnerability reporters can choose to =
exclusively report the bugs to some groups that the reporters feel to be kn=
owledgeable and responsive and, importantly, have the capacity and the moti=
vation to work on it.=C2=A0<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I feel bad for=
 Peter Todd. If I were him, I wouldn't report the bug. I would sell the bug=
 because I got nothing in return, but probably more jealousy or more=C2=A0r=
etaliation for being the only person serious about an issue.=C2=A0</div><di=
v>Btw, Peter already has a fork.=C2=A0</div><div><br /></div><div>Ethereum =
has great software development process as well as its ecosystem. Smart cont=
racts get heavily audited not because people care about security. It is bec=
ause North Korea has successfully stolen probably hundreds of millions of d=
ollars from different projects and even causing some projects to fall apart=
. This is in essence similar to, if one day Bitcoin has a memory exploit is=
sue that causes a massive amount of miners to lose coins that they own, and=
 the network again needs to decide whether to do a hard fork, that is the t=
ime when we will be discussing if stopping development in C/C++ and limitin=
g Bitcoin core development to Rust and Rust only are the way forward.</div>=
<div><br /></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Anonymous user, as the floppy disk =
guy recommends this might be the best way to engage in the mailing list onw=
ard</div><div><br /></div><div>I strongly encourage people to try engaging =
in this email list anonymously. It feels great to say things out loud witho=
ut worrying about retaliation on unrelated matters. Also, this should be pe=
rmitted. We still don't know who Satoshi is. If I were Satoshi, I probably =
also wouldn't report a bug I know.=C2=A0</div><br /><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sunday, July 21, 2024 at 1:49=
:10=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Ava Chow wrote:<br/></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 20=
4); padding-left: 1ex;">On 07/20/2024 10:06 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
<br>&gt; &quot;Naive&quot;, as saying this is the _Bitcoin Core_ project li=
st only can only=20
<br>&gt; provoke blind
<br>&gt; spot among the list members if the security issues are either affe=
cting=20
<br>&gt; old part of
<br>&gt; the codebases that younger members have less experiences with (som=
e=20
<br>&gt; parts like consensus
<br>&gt; or block-relay are modified only every 5 years) or novel factors f=
rom=20
<br>&gt; upstream or downstream
<br>&gt; (e.g the internet networking stack or implications on deployed con=
tract=20
<br>&gt; protocols like
<br>&gt; lightning). On both the former and latter criterias, I think Peter=
=20
<br>&gt; overly meets the bar.
<br>
<br>Peter was not the only &quot;senior&quot; person on the security list. =
Obviously I=20
<br>will not disclose non-public information, but certainly there are peopl=
e=20
<br>on the security list who are just as, if not more, senior than Peter.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, the &quot;old parts&quot; still do get changed, and someon=
e who no=20
<br>longer actively contributes to the project is more likely to be unaware=
=20
<br>of how the code actually works today, even if they are familiar with=20
<br>components that change infrequently.
<br>
<br>&gt; When you&#39;ve big sh*t hitting the fan like inflation bugs or le=
vel DB=20
<br>&gt; 2013 unexpected fork you
<br>&gt; prefer have experts with a decade of experience to collaborate wit=
h, and=20
<br>&gt; sharing the same cultural
<br>&gt; and ethical norms of the active contributors evaluated by numbers =
on=20
<br>&gt; commits on the last single-digit
<br>&gt; years.
<br>
<br>Not being on the list does not preclude him from being consulted if the=
=20
<br>need arises.
<br>
<br>With the two examples you provide, I am not aware of Peter being=20
<br>actively involved in the resolution of both of those, whereas there are=
=20
<br>current members of the list who were.
<br>
<br>
<br>In general though, it is not clear to me how it was beneficial to have=
=20
<br>Peter on the security list, nor how not having him is directly harmful.=
=20
<br>In the 2 years that I have been on the security list, I was unaware tha=
t=20
<br>Peter was a recipient until shortly before he was removed. My=20
<br>understanding is that others who have been on the list longer than me=
=20
<br>were also unaware.
<br>
<br>Ava
<br>
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; I&#39;ll repropose Peter admission on the security list mailing li=
st in the=20
<br>&gt; coming weeks by opening an
<br>&gt; issue on the bitcoin-meta repository, once this current mailing li=
st=20
<br>&gt; thread has slowed down a bit,
<br>&gt; or at least the technical analysis has been dissociated from the=
=20
<br>&gt; proceedings which have all been
<br>&gt; bundle in a big message. In my very personal opinion, I still trus=
t more=20
<br>&gt; Peter competence and experience
<br>&gt; than some other people I know who are on the security mailing list=
.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; All that said I appreciate your answer and I&#39;m satisfied from =
the=20
<br>&gt; personal role you&#39;ve have played
<br>&gt; in the matter with, and be reassured I&#39;ll keep you among the r=
ecipient=20
<br>&gt; of future security issues with
<br>&gt; a potential impact on bitcoin core that I might find or be aware o=
ff.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; Best,
<br>&gt; Antoine
<br>&gt; ots hash: db441b51684ad3a6897f67d42c74ccfcb9a4ffed40d4bdbe30a2edd8=
67ccdd54
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; Le samedi 20 juillet 2024 =C3=A0 01:50:25 UTC+1, Ava Chow a =C3=A9=
crit=C2=A0:
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     On 07/19/2024 07:58 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
<br>&gt;      &gt; As said in one my previous email, I&#39;m still curious =
about achow101
<br>&gt;      &gt; explaining publicly
<br>&gt;      &gt; why you have been kicked-out of the bitcoin-security mai=
ling
<br>&gt;     list, when
<br>&gt;      &gt; you were certainly
<br>&gt;      &gt; more senior than achow101 in matters of base-layer secur=
ity
<br>&gt;     issues or
<br>&gt;      &gt; even hard technical
<br>&gt;      &gt; issues like consensus interactions (e.g bip65). I&#39;ll=
 re-iterate my
<br>&gt;      &gt; respect towards achow101
<br>&gt;      &gt; as a maintainer from years of collaboration, though this=
 is a topic
<br>&gt;      &gt; worthy of an answer.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     I am not the one that removed Peter from the mailing list, nor=
 do I
<br>&gt;     even
<br>&gt;     have the login(s) to do so.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     There was a discussion amongst several members of the security=
 list
<br>&gt;     about who was on the list, and who should be on the list. Give=
n that
<br>&gt;     the
<br>&gt;     security list is the _Bitcoin Core_ security list, we determin=
ed that
<br>&gt;     the people who should be on the list are people who still acti=
vely
<br>&gt;     contribute to the project. As Peter Todd no longer actively co=
ntribute
<br>&gt;     code nor code review to the project, we decided that it didn&#=
39;t make
<br>&gt;     sense to continue to have him on the list.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     My recollection is that multiple other people were removed fro=
m the
<br>&gt;     list
<br>&gt;     for the same reason at the same time.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt;     Ava
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; --=20
<br>&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=
=20
<br>&gt; Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.
<br>&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, =
send=20
<br>&gt; an email to <a href data-email-masked rel=3D"nofollow">bitcoindev+=
...@googlegroups.com</a>=20
<br>&gt; &lt;mailto:<a href data-email-masked rel=3D"nofollow">bitcoindev+.=
..@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;.
<br>&gt; To view this discussion on the web visit=20
<br>&gt; <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-a=
e72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"no=
follow" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=3Den&amp;q=3D=
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7=
c657abn%2540googlegroups.com&amp;source=3Dgmail&amp;ust=3D1721699937499000&=
amp;usg=3DAOvVaw3JOhcYcqwB56VabiynSMa8">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/b=
itcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com</a> &lt;=
<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-=
9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Df=
ooter" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://w=
ww.google.com/url?hl=3Den&amp;q=3Dhttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoin=
dev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%2540googlegroups.com?utm_medium%3=
Demail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&amp;source=3Dgmail&amp;ust=3D1721699937499000&=
amp;usg=3DAOvVaw36PPWcBQurpSiSdteuW7C5">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/b=
itcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medi=
um=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter</a>&gt;.
<br>
<br></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/3f7d43bd-af9e-4af5-860a-223504bb4fcan%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_342117_6754146.1721613592246--

------=_Part_342116_216611184.1721613592246--