MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 08:11:43 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: jlspc <jlspc@protonmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <IhmJ-631z02S9ZjKb4VtaqVWa_W9U0s1Tnn2fhhGGMlXPUD4r5E08UX-N0iYaXTAk4s_90pemkdCRurPZIQjT9WE9gQSHPKbdpcn4aN_-Vs=@protonmail.com>
References: <sJXy1yFGGxPpgtCexzW2WZhMMpJonGlOaT0Gb_eyQdUIOKPRXQ8tqrNvvunPF5E19kFEAeq5IHXx7Y7qkAFoEkGBS3JP5Tq3uFtSAVRg4NY=@protonmail.com>
 <CAFC_Vt7yJCN3a8d5dxmsbpz6i50pXAbSBhgA_HvBYifnoJxrQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <IhmJ-631z02S9ZjKb4VtaqVWa_W9U0s1Tnn2fhhGGMlXPUD4r5E08UX-N0iYaXTAk4s_90pemkdCRurPZIQjT9WE9gQSHPKbdpcn4aN_-Vs=@protonmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.15
Message-ID: <62edca3a0c61b7dca5f7dcddf8e33f6a@dtrt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Lightning Safely With Feerate-Dependent
 Timelocks
Precedence: list

On 2023-12-28 08:06, jlspc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Friday, December 22nd, 2023 at 8:36 AM, Nagaev Boris
> <bnagaev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To validate a transaction with FDT [...]
>> a light client would have to determine the median fee
>> rate of the recent blocks. To do that without involving trust, it has
>> to download the blocks. What do you think about including median
>> feerate as a required OP_RETURN output in coinbase transaction?
> 
> Yes, I think that's a great idea!

I think this points to a small challenge of implementing this soft fork 
for pruned full nodes.  Let's say a fee-dependent timelock (FDT) soft 
fork goes into effect at time/block _t_.  Both before and for a while 
after _t_, Alice is running an older pruned full node that did not 
contain any FDT-aware code, so it prunes blocks after _t_ without 
storing any median feerate information about them (not even commitments 
in the coinbase transaction).  Later, well after _t_, Alice upgrades her 
node to one that is aware of FDTs.  Unfortunately, as a pruned node, it 
doesn't have earlier blocks, so it can't validate FDTs without 
downloading those earlier blocks.

I think the simplest solution would be for a recently-upgrade node to 
begin collecting median feerates for new blocks going forward and to 
only enforce FDTs for which it has the data.  That would mean anyone 
depending on FDTs should be a little more careful about them near 
activation time, as even some node versions that nominally enforced FDT 
consensus rules might not actually be enforcing them yet.

Of course, if the above solution isn't satisfactory, upgraded pruned 
nodes could simply redownload old blocks or, with extensions to the P2P 
protocol, just the relevant parts of them (i.e., coinbase transactions 
or, with a soft fork, even just commitments made in coinbase 
transactions[1]).

-Dave

[1] An idea discussed for the segwit soft fork was requiring the witness 
merkle root OP_RETURN to be the final output of the coinbase transaction 
so that all chunks of the coinbase transaction before it could be 
"compressed" into a SHA midstate and then the midstate could be extended 
with the bytes of the OP_RETURN commitment to produce the coinbase 
transaction's txid, which could then be connected to the block header 
using the standard Bitcoin-style merkle inclusion proof.  This would 
allow trailing commitments in even a very large coinbase transaction to 
be communicated in just a few hundred bytes (not including the size of 
the commitments themselves).  This idea was left out of segwit because 
at least one contemporary model of ASIC miner had a hardware-enforced 
requirement to put a mining reward payout in the final output.