path: root/15/461a7751faa7371523ff4a8b90c439152eb14e

Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10159C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  6 Dec 2022 05:39:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF3A8139E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  6 Dec 2022 05:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org BDF3A8139E
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
 unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=t0wD3/8z
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id s1peXFoVas7V
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  6 Dec 2022 05:39:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org DD98F812CD
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [64.147.123.24])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD98F812CD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  6 Dec 2022 05:39:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3583200A09;
 Tue,  6 Dec 2022 00:39:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:39:44 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id
 :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id
 :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to
 :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
 fm1; t=1670305183; x=1670391583; bh=OzLvjIl63caioq1ZGKGHmxjEyJ26
 8LRGgnXCQKuBG3U=; b=t0wD3/8zl1pIn+Zmiy5ss5fbja1rR/cnjxayreNprdSX
 Ei8QiwQg/vjijuEuIaE0CzBCFs80e6no/wMMEXE3M6rz5YZS59mjH2w23w6D/MIE
 zxmNI24Bx9HBRAKCwB8gKdI1CjrX8BEc+sJQTvqRdVe7BNxVF7KxbuAP+tMZ0jTe
 izLVDp0EtVm1fXr9Mv4/kI0OXtVJkuf+vO5YL9cX82W4NF5TzsC6uD5F9Mo37TJC
 NQ3wPW5a1Cn7P9L3cyIy+KdnfJdoeciehlDCqw83x9flNA2LH4lbXZWsclqPiI7q
 zI7CiAGcI/dL5Wd4dJ50UPuxzK+0M9n1Sfkjpqk3hg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ntWOY_RqE4L4CRj6qnpQDxBZhosBFIT6j-3T6c4KmwET21gayw6uXw>
 <xme:ntWOYwzeQU0tbn2E-tp8RDosrMtCpQaaZpZglBwKJcZvVIH7Apa8zM1V_XsihTRES
 qirT4FonB9sl30DQV0>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:ntWOY02r-iQtlPwGr5AGhD8lLjPYNdUQ6ZUmZIbyesgkr34VZBK5OwbJZlGC>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudehgdekiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
 curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
 uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
 fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghr
 ucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg
 hrnheptddtgedtffetueekfffhffekkeeihfetuddvteejueejffegveeghfduteejhfev
 necuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenuc
 evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvghtvges
 phgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ntWOY_CJgeq-uWt6vlFcUmzg0f4lcrOBKRBx6XPndFo2LTlZ8WXQtw>
 <xmx:ntWOY4gfmcDYAhX7z2sU2OdvDDQYD53VIoHKKABatILkEeXmqidfvw>
 <xmx:ntWOYzo5zRX445bsbBiOT8LntJncpUnA6s17q98ikbXIaBYLGOKgBA>
 <xmx:n9WOYybY9cgOxJUhSxJgLe5L0yJ0U1WFMgWJcnSIQF7yCTHY3B2oHQ>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue,
 6 Dec 2022 00:39:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id 9D9D85F83F; Tue,  6 Dec 2022 00:39:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 00:39:40 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: El_Hoy <eloyesp@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Y47VnGNMt/p5W32U@petertodd.org>
References: <Y2I3w8O5X55sD/3C@petertodd.org> <Y2qc7Ubc5xtJhxGw@petertodd.org>
 <Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au> <Y3OljVGQbZ/Wj8T6@petertodd.org>
 <CAPapNH3NEBP2-GVZZ_75K-QU0psGdAHyjdAus-vfq-0jffTstg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cQJNYgALGzN5h1SE"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPapNH3NEBP2-GVZZ_75K-QU0psGdAHyjdAus-vfq-0jffTstg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty
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, 06 Dec 2022 05:39:49 -0000


--cQJNYgALGzN5h1SE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:20:58AM -0300, El_Hoy wrote:
> The only option I see against the attack Peter Todd is doing to opt-in RBF
> and 0Conf bitcoin usage is working on a bitcoin core implementation that
> stops propagation of full-rbf replaced blocks. Running multiple of such
> nodes on the network will add a risk to miners that enable full-rbf that
> would work as an incentive against that.
>=20
> Obviously that would require adding an option on bitcoin core (that is not
> technically but politically difficult to implement as Petter Todd already
> have commit access to the main repository).

For the record, I do not and have never had commit access to anything under
https://github.com/bitcoin

The last time I contributed to Bitcoin Core was in Mar 1st 2017, and that w=
as
to add an explanatory comment. Pretty much the only reason why you know my =
name
is I'm very good at argument and critique, I come up with some good ideas, =
and
conference organizers love to put me on stage.

> That said, a sufficiently incentivized actor (like Daniel Lipshitz or Muun
> wallet developers) could work on a fork and run several nodes with such
> functionality. As far as I understand the percolation model, with 10 to 20
> nodes running such a rule would create a significant risk for full-rbf
> miners.

You do not understand the percolation model.

10 or 20 nodes is completely meaningless. Pools run nodes themselves, which=
 by
default connect to 8 outgoing peers. There's about 5000 IPv4 listening node=
s on
the network. When a node learns of a new block, it tells all it's peers that
the new block exists.

For your censorship to work, there has to be a substantial propability that=
 a
miner *only* runs a single node (they don't), that has no incoming peers, a=
nd
all 8 peers of that node happen to be one of your 20 censoring nodes.
Obviously, since the probability of a given peer being a censoring node is
20/5000, all 8 being censored is extraordinarily unlikely.

Even if you ran so many nodes that 20% of the entire network was censoring,=
 the
probability of all 8 outgoing peers being censors is only 0.2^8 =3D 0.00025=
6%


This is an example of information being hard to censor and easy to spread. =
In
fact, for full-rbf this same math works in our favor: for a node to have a =
50%
chance of connecting to at least one full-rbf peer, just 8.3% of the network
needs to run full-rbf. 5000 IPv4 nodes * 8% =3D 400 nodes.

The percolation threshold doesn't need to be met for this to be succesful,
because someone to just run a full-rbf node that connects to every single
listening node simultaneously.


Anyway, as others' have pointed out, you're idea is also broken in other wa=
ys.
But I thought it'd be worth pointing out how futile it is to even try.

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

--cQJNYgALGzN5h1SE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BH9F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cQJNYgALGzN5h1SE--