Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:18:11 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZZSZs16f1q6i3oLV@petertodd.org>
References: <ZYMhEJ3y11tnDOAx@petertodd.org>
 <CAFXO6=KS05So_5FizLJxCLEPwBxNPV9Wrgi=9sjzmrZ+PLpLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYNFK5V5e9PnT9eL@petertodd.org>
 <CAB3F3DuKxw_osQcW++GeasGVEedcZ16inqrQPoAWQiF4HsGbdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYNYgBovvwodqSuZ@petertodd.org>
 <CAFXO6=JuMwFjy-Q9h3U8dTr_4TvDjusFFX6orVhXvCG_G8WbOA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wvVYYDvkJthbMm4+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFXO6=JuMwFjy-Q9h3U8dTr_4TvDjusFFX6orVhXvCG_G8WbOA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] V3 Transactions are still vulnerable to
 significant tx pinning griefing attacks
Precedence: list


--wvVYYDvkJthbMm4+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:12:05AM +0000, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>=20
> > You make a good point that the commitment transaction also needs to be
> included
> > in my calculations. But you are incorrect about the size of them.
>=20
> > With taproot and ephemeral anchors, a typical commitment transaction
> would have
> > a single-sig input (musig), two taproot outputs, and an ephemeral anchor
> > output.  Such a transaction is only 162vB, much less than 1000vB.
>=20
> Note that these scenarios are much less interesting for commitment
> transactions with no HTLC outputs, so 162 isn't what I would use for the
> minimum.

What scenarios you consider "interesting" is not relevant. You can't pick an
arbitrary minimum based on an interesting scenario. You should pick an actu=
al
relevant minimum.

So with that in mind, let's ask the question: Do we think it's common for
channels to be force closed without HTLCs pending? I believe the answer is
likely to be yes, because channels are only used some of the time.

Can we verify that? Well, I just checked my node, and out of the past 15 fo=
rce
closes, 12 had no HTLCs outstanding. 2 had one HTLC outstanding, and 1 had 2
HTLCs.

I also checked a big node I'm connected to, fixedfloat. Again, out of the p=
ast
15 force closes, 11 had no HTLCs outstanding, with 4 having 1 HTLC
outstanding... but of those only 2 HTLCs were profitable to collect. The ot=
her
half cost more money in fees than the HTLC value.

Looks to me like the supermajority of force closes are the most boring type.
And those numbers would be even more tilted in that direction if Lightning
implementations had better economics management.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--wvVYYDvkJthbMm4+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Fshp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wvVYYDvkJthbMm4+--