Return-Path: <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875E0C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:46:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE7740C28
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:46:01 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 4EE7740C28
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=VADQc/ao
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id h9MjmIu9Uw1s
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:46:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2DC9240116
Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC9240116
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:46:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id h20so4398411ilj.13
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=XLog6hV6QP6+R2zWDsP6HiHPSG/F7CLjLs7jEjy32Cs=;
 b=VADQc/aoy8EsU+KqNfPaH3GsvBjaFkJvGHWWfWrNWb8VXOHjgr5a9S2n5b5rht5pMv
 qUpZ8YgNaX+lwd7UVUT9yND/fiT56340FKk8mK8HSfHEaug/tpVmbNOzo5fOk7iicmXp
 BIiGczGDrnENheJIywukfzVrYI6iKW1YpYjcjUJK1sElafi2YANIsK8UKMNzmu4/jiAV
 obx2mz23cHxbqc2JgiSpy7Z4kygGKW22jFL5IKZfFOXy/pcH4SkhWEablnhdnqIomYb4
 bNp/PdmrjgFAJigBK08cdrvMpmFO6zw8TQNK3vf55zgextsWyDhpiFr/p3EydUdkfsEY
 976A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=XLog6hV6QP6+R2zWDsP6HiHPSG/F7CLjLs7jEjy32Cs=;
 b=c6AHCG+TDAW1lDTykabsbKQUDWpQmx3csY40ExoUar7CwfTSDBexEn9U9y51X5iox4
 yC9zgLYTAP34q/BsflsX4O2HjtaSrdD6wCKsINR1PbqS+N6uAGXrpbQIddy630QJoVkw
 lh1uwBImbtDyJ+DjAzdjL6ZOJ06hhK1Er2HET4qNuDFR1hFroglFVtNlxRbkn82jB99p
 m5+eZQ610SZ4LdSE2i8B5UJiNRCj7YSPm5W3VAMUcXD4SIfCGKIXGesz9NkgCJXJctCD
 eSUZ82GrZKQ5a9K47ktO2YQf6tDES/vQ22vC68PkCUaSYPjwn/xFvc4UVCDLa88o1jPq
 KgjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/sjTm1etNNgV3fidfXIqRPm5ELeDjAjLMJDFlXSXaSYlDqExV+
 fAGufnrSFjgzBcOyPxbI/Wls3z3f347WFQqmBRr8ymT1b80=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uQojwDy7Z/IwKB+Dz1KlZPyCmeh1l3NmCFggKEp6m6TUjEDHnw1ZChkDd12aWXmH9MQcpojio2v9lhyaf8JjQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b83:b0:2d9:2313:94c with SMTP id
 h3-20020a056e021b8300b002d92313094cmr453423ili.191.1655855159274; Tue, 21 Jun
 2022 16:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALZpt+GOh-7weEypT9JrzcwthZJqHOfj7sf9FMuqi5_FZv0g7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YrEHo+3XLDNgIOnz@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <YrEHo+3XLDNgIOnz@petertodd.org>
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:45:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CALZpt+EL=k_6iE5B950oz3EdLaQbRvgCNYZ8Lko4fcONcACvfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009173a605e1fdd229"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:02:05 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s
	security
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:46:01 -0000

--0000000000009173a605e1fdd229
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without th=
e
> opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would
propagate to
> the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per
block),
> without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting at
the
> minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block
arrives
> without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much
full-rbf
> hash power at this moment.
>
> You can see the current status at:
https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/

That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the absence of
full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of full-rbf
propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we see
an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hint
of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively
stable across the transaction issuance...)

Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including
automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I'm
thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate them
with the new policy setting.

Antoine

Le lun. 20 juin 2022 =C3=A0 19:49, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> a =C3=A9=
crit :

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:25:11PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > For that reason, I believe it would be beneficial to the flourishing of
> > multi-party funded transactions to fix the Dos vector by seeing a subse=
t
> of
> > the network running full-rbf and enabling propagation of honest
> multi-party
> > transactions to the interested miners, replacing potential non-signalin=
g
> > double-spend from a malicious counterparty. Moving towards that
> direction,
> > I've submitted a small patch against Bitcoin Core enabling it to turn o=
n
> > full-rbf as a policy, still under review [3]. The default setting stays
> > **false**, i.e keeping opt-in RBF as a default replacement policy. I've
> > started to run the patch on a public node at 146.190.224.15.
>
> BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without th=
e
> opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would propagat=
e
> to
> the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per
> block),
> without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting at
> the
> minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block arriv=
es
> without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much
> full-rbf
> hash power at this moment.
>
> You can see the current status at:
> https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>

--0000000000009173a605e1fdd229
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt; BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bu=
mping txs without the<br>&gt; opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also =
made sure txs would propagate to<br>&gt; the above node. As of right now, i=
t&#39;s up to 32 replacements (once per block),<br>&gt; without any of them=
 mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting at the<br>&gt; minimum p=
ossible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block arrives<br>&gt; =
without the tx getting mined. So that&#39;s evidence we don&#39;t have much=
 full-rbf<br>&gt; hash power at this moment.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; You can see t=
he current status at: <a href=3D"https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.=
org/">https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/</a><br><br>That&#39;s =
interesting. I&#39;m not sure if we can conclude of the absence of full-rbf=
 hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of full-rbf propagat=
ion path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we see an opt-o=
ut replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hint of full-r=
bf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively stable acros=
s the transaction issuance...)<br><br>Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch l=
ands in Bitcoin Core, including automatic outbound connections to few `NODE=
_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I&#39;m thinking of reaching out to a few mining no=
de operators to advocate them with the new policy setting.<br><br>Antoine<b=
r></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr=
">Le=C2=A0lun. 20 juin 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A019:49, Peter Todd &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jun 13, 202=
2 at 08:25:11PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; For that reason, I believe it would be beneficial to the flourishing o=
f<br>
&gt; multi-party funded transactions to fix the Dos vector by seeing a subs=
et of<br>
&gt; the network running full-rbf and enabling propagation of honest multi-=
party<br>
&gt; transactions to the interested miners, replacing potential non-signali=
ng<br>
&gt; double-spend from a malicious counterparty. Moving towards that direct=
ion,<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve submitted a small patch against Bitcoin Core enabling it to t=
urn on<br>
&gt; full-rbf as a policy, still under review [3]. The default setting stay=
s<br>
&gt; **false**, i.e keeping opt-in RBF as a default replacement policy. I&#=
39;ve<br>
&gt; started to run the patch on a public node at 146.190.224.15.<br>
<br>
BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without the<=
br>
opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would propagate =
to<br>
the above node. As of right now, it&#39;s up to 32 replacements (once per b=
lock),<br>
without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting at th=
e<br>
minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block arrives=
<br>
without the tx getting mined. So that&#39;s evidence we don&#39;t have much=
 full-rbf<br>
hash power at this moment.<br>
<br>
You can see the current status at: <a href=3D"https://alice.btc.calendar.op=
entimestamps.org/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://alice.btc.c=
alendar.opentimestamps.org/</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://petertodd.org</a> &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000009173a605e1fdd229--