summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/2d/1b878e226db5dbf938ed9eb69a4e44929a465e
blob: 3ab823255d65e60565db5001410ad0dd76002b40 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
Return-Path: <gloriajzhao@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE48FC000D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB525606C8
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
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
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 9IA9Ij5Nn7wY
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 733A3606AA
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id 194so28301032qkj.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 04:18:43 -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=FmK4dJVUVRJ/9oX1UJgH6FWIx68TlNZSY4M1jMF7jmU=;
 b=RURdKod0LkVtsqLAAgynIq89TODcnWYWDc+NVX+TsfuKIGr5NcSA+cMr0qe0grhLL3
 1u83NaRtUzPUaL6kQYdnSUhXf+p0bG86z5wPm80ot9UhfWLqqxOTDBcQ8DFPtsRUAo6a
 GzB2y3b7Vzh3b1CwKVsIKi7H18Pd+xkIm4ciawrettFHdJcyKjvO1NtsYWyenj7iZaKB
 vpIX0X9axZwwGM2K3tMlPfZSKyh09xL0Yl8MAnhX3+xDnGa6SPJzlDDPiHNsRCqjS1o+
 wDfvziPEQJvFlWpFeTmbHp5g0NrnJkEFFL4LuQ5FCJo7c8468P2kCMWKrp4E9d6Mn6Ww
 TmeA==
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=FmK4dJVUVRJ/9oX1UJgH6FWIx68TlNZSY4M1jMF7jmU=;
 b=HGYWSX5642UWEr0jOPbVSTsj+567/L0sVgw5fxU9KpKeO3LXHb1/uJp8ikQ3doB/mh
 59wV2ZP+vdARsf8nsyCdS7aSOGSgp0wqQV5jGW9nxV8/6IyghozL8Oq6eIZdvr6SlEr4
 eswJpCAjoAlI8Pm+9sLkb2eK2nhyvo9oZj37Lm2Z2I7kKDeWwbO7QGYTb4qarbfxw2jz
 4eALcJGj1lczje1zO8R8BAYmKGSTt7e5HXklBe2zT3zAM+vEX88i2QyASC5xhBaQNCZN
 DB60e4FcXv4onw9IeYeain0XAx1QDSsM0w6NoiYKd9shL/whXZx5PwVe6wmHCIpGiMSL
 yF9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530n2bSQ7t5Fo9b7ug1HkMtZm+u/brlkl1p/6thPgAsE9/SJOHKm
 i03bnBk8QnWDpeZX1DabGQPXOF4J1FPnABEQo50=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwnLSC9FdHEEi20WVReHAVzXuFlRvZzQLaJBKHgYAp+GDa8gWi+FwBjwB7gnazIr5dRKnCAsbSs1FsWYKbHnqM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:7c4:: with SMTP id t4mr37622993ybq.368.1632223122163; 
 Tue, 21 Sep 2021 04:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFXO6=+cHyQKM2n9yn4EhwLZO+AUB0ZD81qWPxmpN27rjUoU3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACdvm3NdqYFvJ9t4ocXjdLT09fPu40YYwdvpvOnyYCmk5QXyrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACdvm3NdqYFvJ9t4ocXjdLT09fPu40YYwdvpvOnyYCmk5QXyrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:18:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFXO6=+auN_X=C52WB8fBqREUYahnFr1dzYotys7k7x+PjO1DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien@acinq.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006411cf05cc7f8f89"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:20:52 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Package Mempool Accept and Package RBF
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 Sep 2021 11:18:48 -0000

--0000000000006411cf05cc7f8f89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Bastien,

Thank you for your feedback!

> In your example we have a parent transaction A already in the mempool
> and an unrelated child B. We submit a package C + D where C spends
> another of A's inputs. You're highlighting that this package may be
> rejected because of the unrelated transaction(s) B.

> The way I see this, an attacker can abuse this rule to ensure
> transaction A stays pinned in the mempool without confirming by
> broadcasting a set of child transactions that reach these limits
> and pay low fees (where A would be a commit tx in LN).

I believe you are describing a pinning attack in which your adversarial
counterparty attempts to monopolize the mempool descendant limit of the
shared  transaction A in order to prevent you from submitting a fee-bumping
child C; I've tried to illustrate this as diagram A here:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/134159860-068080d0-bbb6-=
4356-ae74-00df00644c74.png
(please let me know if I'm misunderstanding).

I believe this attack is mitigated as long as we attempt to submit
transactions individually (and thus take advantage of CPFP carve out)
before attempting package validation. So, in scenario A2, even if the
mempool receives a package with A+C, it would deduplicate A, submit C as an
individual transaction, and allow it due to the CPFP carve out exemption. A
more general goal is: if a transaction would propagate successfully on its
own now, it should still propagate regardless of whether it is included in
a package. The best way to ensure this, as far as I can tell, is to always
try to submit them individually first.

I would note that this proposal doesn't accommodate something like diagram
B, where C is getting CPFP carve out and wants to bring a +1 (e.g. C has
very low fees and is bumped by D). I don't think this is a use case since C
should be the one fee-bumping A, but since we're talking about limitations
around the CPFP carve out, this is it.

Let me know if this addresses your concerns?

Thanks,
Gloria

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:19 AM Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien@acinq.fr>
wrote:

> Hi Gloria,
>
> Thanks for this detailed post!
>
> The illustrations you provided are very useful for this kind of graph
> topology problems.
>
> The rules you lay out for package RBF look good to me at first glance
> as there are some subtle improvements compared to BIP 125.
>
> > 1. A package cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=3D25` count and
> > `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=3D101KvB` total size [8]
>
> I have a question regarding this rule, as your example 2C could be
> concerning for LN (unless I didn't understand it correctly).
>
> This also touches on the package RBF rule 5 ("The package cannot
> replace more than 100 mempool transactions.")
>
> In your example we have a parent transaction A already in the mempool
> and an unrelated child B. We submit a package C + D where C spends
> another of A's inputs. You're highlighting that this package may be
> rejected because of the unrelated transaction(s) B.
>
> The way I see this, an attacker can abuse this rule to ensure
> transaction A stays pinned in the mempool without confirming by
> broadcasting a set of child transactions that reach these limits
> and pay low fees (where A would be a commit tx in LN).
>
> We had to create the CPFP carve-out rule explicitly to work around
> this limitation, and I think it would be necessary for package RBF
> as well, because in such cases we do want to be able to submit a
> package A + C where C pays high fees to speed up A's confirmation,
> regardless of unrelated unconfirmed children of A...
>
> We could submit only C to benefit from the existing CPFP carve-out
> rule, but that wouldn't work if our local mempool doesn't have A yet,
> but other remote mempools do.
>
> Is my concern justified? Is this something that we should dig into a
> bit deeper?
>
> Thanks,
> Bastien
>
> Le jeu. 16 sept. 2021 =C3=A0 09:55, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit :
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I'm writing to propose a set of mempool policy changes to enable package
>> validation (in preparation for package relay) in Bitcoin Core. These
>> would not
>> be consensus or P2P protocol changes. However, since mempool policy
>> significantly affects transaction propagation, I believe this is relevan=
t
>> for
>> the mailing list.
>>
>> My proposal enables packages consisting of multiple parents and 1 child.
>> If you
>> develop software that relies on specific transaction relay assumptions
>> and/or
>> are interested in using package relay in the future, I'm very interested
>> to hear
>> your feedback on the utility or restrictiveness of these package policie=
s
>> for
>> your use cases.
>>
>> A draft implementation of this proposal can be found in [Bitcoin Core
>> PR#22290][1].
>>
>> An illustrated version of this post can be found at
>> https://gist.github.com/glozow/dc4e9d5c5b14ade7cdfac40f43adb18a.
>> I have also linked the images below.
>>
>> ## Background
>>
>> Feel free to skip this section if you are already familiar with mempool
>> policy
>> and package relay terminology.
>>
>> ### Terminology Clarifications
>>
>> * Package =3D an ordered list of related transactions, representable by =
a
>> Directed
>>   Acyclic Graph.
>> * Package Feerate =3D the total modified fees divided by the total virtu=
al
>> size of
>>   all transactions in the package.
>>     - Modified fees =3D a transaction's base fees + fee delta applied by
>> the user
>>       with `prioritisetransaction`. As such, we expect this to vary acro=
ss
>> mempools.
>>     - Virtual Size =3D the maximum of virtual sizes calculated using [BI=
P141
>>       virtual size][2] and sigop weight. [Implemented here in Bitcoin
>> Core][3].
>>     - Note that feerate is not necessarily based on the base fees and
>> serialized
>>       size.
>>
>> * Fee-Bumping =3D user/wallet actions that take advantage of miner
>> incentives to
>>   boost a transaction's candidacy for inclusion in a block, including
>> Child Pays
>> for Parent (CPFP) and [BIP125][12] Replace-by-Fee (RBF). Our intention i=
n
>> mempool policy is to recognize when the new transaction is more
>> economical to
>> mine than the original one(s) but not open DoS vectors, so there are som=
e
>> limitations.
>>
>> ### Policy
>>
>> The purpose of the mempool is to store the best (to be most
>> incentive-compatible
>> with miners, highest feerate) candidates for inclusion in a block. Miner=
s
>> use
>> the mempool to build block templates. The mempool is also useful as a
>> cache for
>> boosting block relay and validation performance, aiding transaction
>> relay, and
>> generating feerate estimations.
>>
>> Ideally, all consensus-valid transactions paying reasonable fees should
>> make it
>> to miners through normal transaction relay, without any special
>> connectivity or
>> relationships with miners. On the other hand, nodes do not have unlimite=
d
>> resources, and a P2P network designed to let any honest node broadcast
>> their
>> transactions also exposes the transaction validation engine to DoS
>> attacks from
>> malicious peers.
>>
>> As such, for unconfirmed transactions we are considering for our mempool=
,
>> we
>> apply a set of validation rules in addition to consensus, primarily to
>> protect
>> us from resource exhaustion and aid our efforts to keep the highest fee
>> transactions. We call this mempool _policy_: a set of (configurable,
>> node-specific) rules that transactions must abide by in order to be
>> accepted
>> into our mempool. Transaction "Standardness" rules and mempool
>> restrictions such
>> as "too-long-mempool-chain" are both examples of policy.
>>
>> ### Package Relay and Package Mempool Accept
>>
>> In transaction relay, we currently consider transactions one at a time f=
or
>> submission to the mempool. This creates a limitation in the node's
>> ability to
>> determine which transactions have the highest feerates, since we cannot
>> take
>> into account descendants (i.e. cannot use CPFP) until all the
>> transactions are
>> in the mempool. Similarly, we cannot use a transaction's descendants whe=
n
>> considering it for RBF. When an individual transaction does not meet the
>> mempool
>> minimum feerate and the user isn't able to create a replacement
>> transaction
>> directly, it will not be accepted by mempools.
>>
>> This limitation presents a security issue for applications and users
>> relying on
>> time-sensitive transactions. For example, Lightning and other protocols
>> create
>> UTXOs with multiple spending paths, where one counterparty's spending
>> path opens
>> up after a timelock, and users are protected from cheating scenarios as
>> long as
>> they redeem on-chain in time. A key security assumption is that all
>> parties'
>> transactions will propagate and confirm in a timely manner. This
>> assumption can
>> be broken if fee-bumping does not work as intended.
>>
>> The end goal for Package Relay is to consider multiple transactions at
>> the same
>> time, e.g. a transaction with its high-fee child. This may help us bette=
r
>> determine whether transactions should be accepted to our mempool,
>> especially if
>> they don't meet fee requirements individually or are better RBF
>> candidates as a
>> package. A combination of changes to mempool validation logic, policy, a=
nd
>> transaction relay allows us to better propagate the transactions with th=
e
>> highest package feerates to miners, and makes fee-bumping tools more
>> powerful
>> for users.
>>
>> The "relay" part of Package Relay suggests P2P messaging changes, but a
>> large
>> part of the changes are in the mempool's package validation logic. We
>> call this
>> *Package Mempool Accept*.
>>
>> ### Previous Work
>>
>> * Given that mempool validation is DoS-sensitive and complex, it would b=
e
>>   dangerous to haphazardly tack on package validation logic. Many effort=
s
>> have
>> been made to make mempool validation less opaque (see [#16400][4],
>> [#21062][5],
>> [#22675][6], [#22796][7]).
>> * [#20833][8] Added basic capabilities for package validation, test
>> accepts only
>>   (no submission to mempool).
>> * [#21800][9] Implemented package ancestor/descendant limit checks for
>> arbitrary
>>   packages. Still test accepts only.
>> * Previous package relay proposals (see [#16401][10], [#19621][11]).
>>
>> ### Existing Package Rules
>>
>> These are in master as introduced in [#20833][8] and [#21800][9]. I'll
>> consider
>> them as "given" in the rest of this document, though they can be changed=
,
>> since
>> package validation is test-accept only right now.
>>
>> 1. A package cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=3D25` count and
>> `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=3D101KvB` total size [8]
>>
>>    *Rationale*: This is already enforced as mempool ancestor/descendant
>> limits.
>> Presumably, transactions in a package are all related, so exceeding this
>> limit
>> would mean that the package can either be split up or it wouldn't pass
>> this
>> mempool policy.
>>
>> 2. Packages must be topologically sorted: if any dependencies exist
>> between
>> transactions, parents must appear somewhere before children. [8]
>>
>> 3. A package cannot have conflicting transactions, i.e. none of them can
>> spend
>> the same inputs. This also means there cannot be duplicate transactions.
>> [8]
>>
>> 4. When packages are evaluated against ancestor/descendant limits in a
>> test
>> accept, the union of all of their descendants and ancestors is
>> considered. This
>> is essentially a "worst case" heuristic where every transaction in the
>> package
>> is treated as each other's ancestor and descendant. [8]
>> Packages for which ancestor/descendant limits are accurately captured by
>> this
>> heuristic: [19]
>>
>> There are also limitations such as the fact that CPFP carve out is not
>> applied
>> to package transactions. #20833 also disables RBF in package validation;
>> this
>> proposal overrides that to allow packages to use RBF.
>>
>> ## Proposed Changes
>>
>> The next step in the Package Mempool Accept project is to implement
>> submission
>> to mempool, initially through RPC only. This allows us to test the
>> submission
>> logic before exposing it on P2P.
>>
>> ### Summary
>>
>> - Packages may contain already-in-mempool transactions.
>> - Packages are 2 generations, Multi-Parent-1-Child.
>> - Fee-related checks use the package feerate. This means that wallets ca=
n
>> create a package that utilizes CPFP.
>> - Parents are allowed to RBF mempool transactions with a set of rules
>> similar
>>   to BIP125. This enables a combination of CPFP and RBF, where a
>> transaction's descendant fees pay for replacing mempool conflicts.
>>
>> There is a draft implementation in [#22290][1]. It is WIP, but feedback =
is
>> always welcome.
>>
>> ### Details
>>
>> #### Packages May Contain Already-in-Mempool Transactions
>>
>> A package may contain transactions that are already in the mempool. We
>> remove
>> ("deduplicate") those transactions from the package for the purposes of
>> package
>> mempool acceptance. If a package is empty after deduplication, we do
>> nothing.
>>
>> *Rationale*: Mempools vary across the network. It's possible for a paren=
t
>> to be
>> accepted to the mempool of a peer on its own due to differences in polic=
y
>> and
>> fee market fluctuations. We should not reject or penalize the entire
>> package for
>> an individual transaction as that could be a censorship vector.
>>
>> #### Packages Are Multi-Parent-1-Child
>>
>> Only packages of a specific topology are permitted. Namely, a package is
>> exactly
>> 1 child with all of its unconfirmed parents. After deduplication, the
>> package
>> may be exactly the same, empty, 1 child, 1 child with just some of its
>> unconfirmed parents, etc. Note that it's possible for the parents to be
>> indirect
>> descendants/ancestors of one another, or for parent and child to share a
>> parent,
>> so we cannot make any other topology assumptions.
>>
>> *Rationale*: This allows for fee-bumping by CPFP. Allowing multiple
>> parents
>> makes it possible to fee-bump a batch of transactions. Restricting
>> packages to a
>> defined topology is also easier to reason about and simplifies the
>> validation
>> logic greatly. Multi-parent-1-child allows us to think of the package as
>> one big
>> transaction, where:
>>
>> - Inputs =3D all the inputs of parents + inputs of the child that come f=
rom
>>   confirmed UTXOs
>> - Outputs =3D all the outputs of the child + all outputs of the parents =
that
>>   aren't spent by other transactions in the package
>>
>> Examples of packages that follow this rule (variations of example A show
>> some
>> possibilities after deduplication): ![image][15]
>>
>> #### Fee-Related Checks Use Package Feerate
>>
>> Package Feerate =3D the total modified fees divided by the total virtual
>> size of
>> all transactions in the package.
>>
>> To meet the two feerate requirements of a mempool, i.e., the
>> pre-configured
>> minimum relay feerate (`minRelayTxFee`) and dynamic mempool minimum
>> feerate, the
>> total package feerate is used instead of the individual feerate. The
>> individual
>> transactions are allowed to be below feerate requirements if the package
>> meets
>> the feerate requirements. For example, the parent(s) in the package can
>> have 0
>> fees but be paid for by the child.
>>
>> *Rationale*: This can be thought of as "CPFP within a package," solving
>> the
>> issue of a parent not meeting minimum fees on its own. This allows L2
>> applications to adjust their fees at broadcast time instead of
>> overshooting or
>> risking getting stuck/pinned.
>>
>> We use the package feerate of the package *after deduplication*.
>>
>> *Rationale*:  It would be incorrect to use the fees of transactions that
>> are
>> already in the mempool, as we do not want a transaction's fees to be
>> double-counted for both its individual RBF and package RBF.
>>
>> Examples F and G [14] show the same package, but P1 is submitted
>> individually before
>> the package in example G. In example F, we can see that the 300vB packag=
e
>> pays
>> an additional 200sat in fees, which is not enough to pay for its own
>> bandwidth
>> (BIP125#4). In example G, we can see that P1 pays enough to replace M1,
>> but
>> using P1's fees again during package submission would make it look like =
a
>> 300sat
>> increase for a 200vB package. Even including its fees and size would not
>> be
>> sufficient in this example, since the 300sat looks like enough for the
>> 300vB
>> package. The calculcation after deduplication is 100sat increase for a
>> package
>> of size 200vB, which correctly fails BIP125#4. Assume all transactions
>> have a
>> size of 100vB.
>>
>> #### Package RBF
>>
>> If a package meets feerate requirements as a package, the parents in the
>> transaction are allowed to replace-by-fee mempool transactions. The chil=
d
>> cannot
>> replace mempool transactions. Multiple transactions can replace the same
>> transaction, but in order to be valid, none of the transactions can try =
to
>> replace an ancestor of another transaction in the same package (which
>> would thus
>> make its inputs unavailable).
>>
>> *Rationale*: Even if we are using package feerate, a package will not
>> propagate
>> as intended if RBF still requires each individual transaction to meet th=
e
>> feerate requirements.
>>
>> We use a set of rules slightly modified from BIP125 as follows:
>>
>> ##### Signaling (Rule #1)
>>
>> All mempool transactions to be replaced must signal replaceability.
>>
>> *Rationale*: Package RBF signaling logic should be the same for package
>> RBF and
>> single transaction acceptance. This would be updated if single transacti=
on
>> validation moves to full RBF.
>>
>> ##### New Unconfirmed Inputs (Rule #2)
>>
>> A package may include new unconfirmed inputs, but the ancestor feerate o=
f
>> the
>> child must be at least as high as the ancestor feerates of every
>> transaction
>> being replaced. This is contrary to BIP125#2, which states "The
>> replacement
>> transaction may only include an unconfirmed input if that input was
>> included in
>> one of the original transactions. (An unconfirmed input spends an output
>> from a
>> currently-unconfirmed transaction.)"
>>
>> *Rationale*: The purpose of BIP125#2 is to ensure that the replacement
>> transaction has a higher ancestor score than the original transaction(s)
>> (see
>> [comment][13]). Example H [16] shows how adding a new unconfirmed input
>> can lower the
>> ancestor score of the replacement transaction. P1 is trying to replace
>> M1, and
>> spends an unconfirmed output of M2. P1 pays 800sat, M1 pays 600sat, and
>> M2 pays
>> 100sat. Assume all transactions have a size of 100vB. While, in
>> isolation, P1
>> looks like a better mining candidate than M1, it must be mined with M2,
>> so its
>> ancestor feerate is actually 4.5sat/vB.  This is lower than M1's ancesto=
r
>> feerate, which is 6sat/vB.
>>
>> In package RBF, the rule analogous to BIP125#2 would be "none of the
>> transactions in the package can spend new unconfirmed inputs." Example J
>> [17] shows
>> why, if any of the package transactions have ancestors, package feerate
>> is no
>> longer accurate. Even though M2 and M3 are not ancestors of P1 (which is
>> the
>> replacement transaction in an RBF), we're actually interested in the
>> entire
>> package. A miner should mine M1 which is 5sat/vB instead of M2, M3, P1,
>> P2, and
>> P3, which is only 4sat/vB. The Package RBF rule cannot be loosened to
>> only allow
>> the child to have new unconfirmed inputs, either, because it can still
>> cause us
>> to overestimate the package's ancestor score.
>>
>> However, enforcing a rule analogous to BIP125#2 would not only make
>> Package RBF
>> less useful, but would also break Package RBF for packages with parents
>> already
>> in the mempool: if a package parent has already been submitted, it would
>> look
>> like the child is spending a "new" unconfirmed input. In example K [18],
>> we're
>> looking to replace M1 with the entire package including P1, P2, and P3.
>> We must
>> consider the case where one of the parents is already in the mempool (in
>> this
>> case, P2), which means we must allow P3 to have new unconfirmed inputs.
>> However,
>> M2 lowers the ancestor score of P3 to 4.3sat/vB, so we should not replac=
e
>> M1
>> with this package.
>>
>> Thus, the package RBF rule regarding new unconfirmed inputs is less
>> strict than
>> BIP125#2. However, we still achieve the same goal of requiring the
>> replacement
>> transactions to have a ancestor score at least as high as the original
>> ones. As
>> a result, the entire package is required to be a higher feerate mining
>> candidate
>> than each of the replaced transactions.
>>
>> Another note: the [comment][13] above the BIP125#2 code in the original
>> RBF
>> implementation suggests that the rule was intended to be temporary.
>>
>> ##### Absolute Fee (Rule #3)
>>
>> The package must increase the absolute fee of the mempool, i.e. the tota=
l
>> fees
>> of the package must be higher than the absolute fees of the mempool
>> transactions
>> it replaces. Combined with the CPFP rule above, this differs from BIP125
>> Rule #3
>> - an individual transaction in the package may have lower fees than the
>>   transaction(s) it is replacing. In fact, it may have 0 fees, and the
>> child
>> pays for RBF.
>>
>> ##### Feerate (Rule #4)
>>
>> The package must pay for its own bandwidth; the package feerate must be
>> higher
>> than the replaced transactions by at least minimum relay feerate
>> (`incrementalRelayFee`). Combined with the CPFP rule above, this differs
>> from
>> BIP125 Rule #4 - an individual transaction in the package can have a low=
er
>> feerate than the transaction(s) it is replacing. In fact, it may have 0
>> fees,
>> and the child pays for RBF.
>>
>> ##### Total Number of Replaced Transactions (Rule #5)
>>
>> The package cannot replace more than 100 mempool transactions. This is
>> identical
>> to BIP125 Rule #5.
>>
>> ### Expected FAQs
>>
>> 1. Is it possible for only some of the package to make it into the
>> mempool?
>>
>>    Yes, it is. However, since we evict transactions from the mempool by
>> descendant score and the package child is supposed to be sponsoring the
>> fees of
>> its parents, the most common scenario would be all-or-nothing. This is
>> incentive-compatible. In fact, to be conservative, package validation
>> should
>> begin by trying to submit all of the transactions individually, and only
>> use the
>> package mempool acceptance logic if the parents fail due to low feerate.
>>
>> 2. Should we allow packages to contain already-confirmed transactions?
>>
>>     No, for practical reasons. In mempool validation, we actually aren't
>> able to
>> tell with 100% confidence if we are looking at a transaction that has
>> already
>> confirmed, because we look up inputs using a UTXO set. If we have
>> historical
>> block data, it's possible to look for it, but this is inefficient, not
>> always
>> possible for pruning nodes, and unnecessary because we're not going to d=
o
>> anything with the transaction anyway. As such, we already have the
>> expectation
>> that transaction relay is somewhat "stateful" i.e. nobody should be
>> relaying
>> transactions that have already been confirmed. Similarly, we shouldn't b=
e
>> relaying packages that contain already-confirmed transactions.
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22290
>> [2]:
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/1f0b563738199ca60d32b4ba779797fc97d=
040fe/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-size-calculations
>> [3]:
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/94f83534e4b771944af7d9ed0f40746f=
392eb75e/src/policy/policy.cpp#L282
>> [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16400
>> [5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21062
>> [6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22675
>> [7]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22796
>> [8]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20833
>> [9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21800
>> [10]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16401
>> [11]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19621
>> [12]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki
>> [13]:
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871/files#diff-34d21af3c614ea3c=
ee120df276c9c4ae95053830d7f1d3deaf009a4625409ad2R1101-R1104
>> [14]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567078-075a971c-06=
19-4339-9168-b41fd2b90c28.png
>> [15]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132856734-fc17da75-f8=
75-44bb-b954-cb7a1725cc0d.png
>> [16]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567347-a3e2e4a8-ae=
9c-49f8-abb9-81e8e0aba224.png
>> [17]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567370-21566d0e-36=
c8-4831-b1a8-706634540af3.png
>> [18]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567444-bfff1142-43=
9f-4547-800a-2ba2b0242bcb.png
>> [19]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133456219-0bb447cb-dc=
b4-4a31-b9c1-7d86205b68bc.png
>> [20]:
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132857787-7b7c6f56-af=
96-44c8-8d78-983719888c19.png
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

--0000000000006411cf05cc7f8f89
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Bastien,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for yo=
ur feedback!<br></div><div><br></div><div>&gt; In your example we have a pa=
rent transaction A already in the mempool<br>&gt; and an unrelated child B.=
 We submit a package C + D where C spends<br>&gt; another of A&#39;s inputs=
. You&#39;re highlighting that this package may be<br>&gt; rejected because=
 of the unrelated transaction(s) B.<br><br>&gt; The way I see this, an atta=
cker can abuse this rule to ensure<br>&gt; transaction A stays pinned in th=
e mempool without confirming by<br>&gt; broadcasting a set of child transac=
tions that reach these limits<br>&gt; and pay low fees (where A would be a =
commit tx in LN).</div><div><br></div><div>I believe you are describing a p=
inning attack in which your adversarial counterparty attempts to monopolize=
 the mempool descendant limit of the shared=C2=A0 transaction A in order to=
 prevent you from submitting a fee-bumping child C; I&#39;ve tried to illus=
trate this as diagram A here: <a href=3D"https://user-images.githubusercont=
ent.com/25183001/134159860-068080d0-bbb6-4356-ae74-00df00644c74.png">https:=
//user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/134159860-068080d0-bbb6-4356-a=
e74-00df00644c74.png</a> (please let me know if I&#39;m misunderstanding).<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I believe this attack is mitigated as long as we a=
ttempt to submit transactions individually (and thus take advantage of CPFP=
 carve out) before attempting package validation. So, in scenario A2, even =
if the mempool receives a package with A+C, it would deduplicate A, submit =
C as an individual transaction, and allow it due to the CPFP carve out exem=
ption. A more general goal is: if a transaction would propagate successfull=
y on its own now, it should still propagate regardless of whether it is inc=
luded in a package. The best way to ensure this, as far as I can tell, is t=
o always try to submit them individually first.<br></div><div><br></div><di=
v>I would note that this proposal doesn&#39;t accommodate something like di=
agram B, where C is getting CPFP carve out and wants to bring a=C2=A0+1 (e.=
g. C has very low fees and is bumped by D). I don&#39;t think this is a use=
 case since C should be the one fee-bumping A, but since we&#39;re talking =
about limitations around the CPFP carve out, this is it.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Let me know if this addresses your concerns?<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Thanks,</div><div>Gloria<br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:19 AM Ba=
stien TEINTURIER &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bastien@acinq.fr" target=3D"_blank">=
bastien@acinq.fr</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Gloria,<br><br>Thanks for this detailed=
 post!<br><br>The illustrations you provided are very useful for this kind =
of graph<br>topology problems.<br><br>The rules you lay out for package RBF=
 look good to me at first glance<br>as there are some subtle improvements c=
ompared to BIP 125.<br><br>&gt; 1. A package cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COU=
NT=3D25` count and<br>&gt; `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=3D101KvB` total size [8]<br><b=
r>I have a question regarding this rule, as your example 2C could be<br>con=
cerning for LN (unless I didn&#39;t understand it correctly).<br><br>This a=
lso touches on the package RBF rule 5 (&quot;The package cannot<br>replace =
more than 100 mempool transactions.&quot;)<br><br>In your example we have a=
 parent transaction A already in the mempool<br>and an unrelated child B. W=
e submit a package C + D where C spends<br>another of A&#39;s inputs. You&#=
39;re highlighting that this package may be<br>rejected because of the unre=
lated transaction(s) B.<br><br>The way I see this, an attacker can abuse th=
is rule to ensure<br>transaction A stays pinned in the mempool without conf=
irming by<br>broadcasting a set of child transactions that reach these limi=
ts<br>and pay low fees (where A would be a commit tx in LN).<br><br>We had =
to create the CPFP carve-out rule explicitly to work around<br>this limitat=
ion, and I think it would be necessary for package RBF<br>as well, because =
in such cases we do want to be able to submit a<br>package A + C where C pa=
ys high fees to speed up A&#39;s confirmation,<br>regardless of unrelated u=
nconfirmed children of A...<br><br>We could submit only C to benefit from t=
he existing CPFP carve-out<br>rule, but that wouldn&#39;t work if our local=
 mempool doesn&#39;t have A yet,<br>but other remote mempools do.<br><br>Is=
 my concern justified? Is this something that we should dig into a<br>bit d=
eeper?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Bastien</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0jeu. 16 sept. 2021 =C3=A0=C2=A009:5=
5, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a=
>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi there,<br><br>I&#39;m writing to propose a s=
et of mempool policy changes to enable package<br>validation (in preparatio=
n for package relay) in Bitcoin Core. These would not<br>be consensus or P2=
P protocol changes. However, since mempool policy<br>significantly affects =
transaction propagation, I believe this is relevant for<br>the mailing list=
.<br><br>My proposal enables packages consisting of multiple parents and 1 =
child. If you<br>develop software that relies on specific transaction relay=
 assumptions and/or<br>are interested in using package relay in the future,=
 I&#39;m very interested to hear<br>your feedback on the utility or restric=
tiveness of these package policies for<br>your use cases.<br><br>A draft im=
plementation of this proposal can be found in [Bitcoin Core<br>PR#22290][1]=
.<br><br>An illustrated version of this post can be found at<br><div><a hre=
f=3D"https://gist.github.com/glozow/dc4e9d5c5b14ade7cdfac40f43adb18a" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://gist.github.com/glozow/dc4e9d5c5b14ade7cdfac40f43adb18=
a</a>.</div><div>I have also linked the images below.</div><br>## Backgroun=
d<br><br>Feel free to skip this section if you are already familiar with me=
mpool policy<br>and package relay terminology.<br><br>### Terminology Clari=
fications<br><br>* Package =3D an ordered list of related transactions, rep=
resentable by a Directed<br>=C2=A0 Acyclic Graph.<br>* Package Feerate =3D =
the total modified fees divided by the total virtual size of<br>=C2=A0 all =
transactions in the package.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Modified fees =3D a transac=
tion&#39;s base fees + fee delta applied by the user<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 with `prioritisetransaction`. As such, we expect this to vary across<br=
>mempools.<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Virtual Size =3D the maximum of virtual sizes=
 calculated using [BIP141<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 virtual size][2] and sigo=
p weight. [Implemented here in Bitcoin Core][3].<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Note th=
at feerate is not necessarily based on the base fees and serialized<br>=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 size.<br><br>* Fee-Bumping =3D user/wallet actions that t=
ake advantage of miner incentives to<br>=C2=A0 boost a transaction&#39;s ca=
ndidacy for inclusion in a block, including Child Pays<br>for Parent (CPFP)=
 and [BIP125][12] Replace-by-Fee (RBF). Our intention in<br>mempool policy =
is to recognize when the new transaction is more economical to<br>mine than=
 the original one(s) but not open DoS vectors, so there are some<br>limitat=
ions.<br><br>### Policy<br><br>The purpose of the mempool is to store the b=
est (to be most incentive-compatible<br>with miners, highest feerate) candi=
dates for inclusion in a block. Miners use<br>the mempool to build block te=
mplates. The mempool is also useful as a cache for<br>boosting block relay =
and validation performance, aiding transaction relay, and<br>generating fee=
rate estimations.<br><br>Ideally, all consensus-valid transactions paying r=
easonable fees should make it<br>to miners through normal transaction relay=
, without any special connectivity or<br>relationships with miners. On the =
other hand, nodes do not have unlimited<br>resources, and a P2P network des=
igned to let any honest node broadcast their<br>transactions also exposes t=
he transaction validation engine to DoS attacks from<br>malicious peers.<br=
><br>As such, for unconfirmed transactions we are considering for our mempo=
ol, we<br>apply a set of validation rules in addition to consensus, primari=
ly to protect<br>us from resource exhaustion and aid our efforts to keep th=
e highest fee<br>transactions. We call this mempool _policy_: a set of (con=
figurable,<br>node-specific) rules that transactions must abide by in order=
 to be accepted<br>into our mempool. Transaction &quot;Standardness&quot; r=
ules and mempool restrictions such<br>as &quot;too-long-mempool-chain&quot;=
 are both examples of policy.<br><br>### Package Relay and Package Mempool =
Accept<br><br>In transaction relay, we currently consider transactions one =
at a time for<br>submission to the mempool. This creates a limitation in th=
e node&#39;s ability to<br>determine which transactions have the highest fe=
erates, since we cannot take<br>into account descendants (i.e. cannot use C=
PFP) until all the transactions are<br>in the mempool. Similarly, we cannot=
 use a transaction&#39;s descendants when<br>considering it for RBF. When a=
n individual transaction does not meet the mempool<br>minimum feerate and t=
he user isn&#39;t able to create a replacement transaction<br>directly, it =
will not be accepted by mempools.<br><br>This limitation presents a securit=
y issue for applications and users relying on<br>time-sensitive transaction=
s. For example, Lightning and other protocols create<br>UTXOs with multiple=
 spending paths, where one counterparty&#39;s spending path opens<br>up aft=
er a timelock, and users are protected from cheating scenarios as long as<b=
r>they redeem on-chain in time. A key security assumption is that all parti=
es&#39;<br>transactions will propagate and confirm in a timely manner. This=
 assumption can<br>be broken if fee-bumping does not work as intended.<br><=
br>The end goal for Package Relay is to consider multiple transactions at t=
he same<br>time, e.g. a transaction with its high-fee child. This may help =
us better<br>determine whether transactions should be accepted to our mempo=
ol, especially if<br>they don&#39;t meet fee requirements individually or a=
re better RBF candidates as a<br>package. A combination of changes to mempo=
ol validation logic, policy, and<br>transaction relay allows us to better p=
ropagate the transactions with the<br>highest package feerates to miners, a=
nd makes fee-bumping tools more powerful<br>for users.<br><br>The &quot;rel=
ay&quot; part of Package Relay suggests P2P messaging changes, but a large<=
br>part of the changes are in the mempool&#39;s package validation logic. W=
e call this<br>*Package Mempool Accept*.<br><br>### Previous Work<br><br>* =
Given that mempool validation is DoS-sensitive and complex, it would be<br>=
=C2=A0 dangerous to haphazardly tack on package validation logic. Many effo=
rts have<br>been made to make mempool validation less opaque (see [#16400][=
4], [#21062][5],<br>[#22675][6], [#22796][7]).<br>* [#20833][8] Added basic=
 capabilities for package validation, test accepts only<br>=C2=A0 (no submi=
ssion to mempool).<br>* [#21800][9] Implemented package ancestor/descendant=
 limit checks for arbitrary<br>=C2=A0 packages. Still test accepts only.<br=
>* Previous package relay proposals (see [#16401][10], [#19621][11]).<br><b=
r>### Existing Package Rules<br><br>These are in master as introduced in [#=
20833][8] and [#21800][9]. I&#39;ll consider<br>them as &quot;given&quot; i=
n the rest of this document, though they can be changed, since<br>package v=
alidation is test-accept only right now.<br><br>1. A package cannot exceed =
`MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=3D25` count and<br>`MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=3D101KvB` total siz=
e [8]<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*Rationale*: This is already enforced as mempool =
ancestor/descendant limits.<br>Presumably, transactions in a package are al=
l related, so exceeding this limit<br>would mean that the package can eithe=
r be split up or it wouldn&#39;t pass this<br>mempool policy.<br><br>2. Pac=
kages must be topologically sorted: if any dependencies exist between<br>tr=
ansactions, parents must appear somewhere before children. [8]<br><br>3. A =
package cannot have conflicting transactions, i.e. none of them can spend<b=
r><div>the same inputs. This also means there cannot be duplicate transacti=
ons. [8]</div><div><br></div>4. When packages are evaluated against ancesto=
r/descendant limits in a test<br>accept, the union of all of their descenda=
nts and ancestors is considered. This<br>is essentially a &quot;worst case&=
quot; heuristic where every transaction in the package<br>is treated as eac=
h other&#39;s ancestor and descendant.  [8]<br>Packages for which ancestor/=
descendant limits are accurately captured by this<br><div>heuristic: [19]</=
div><br>There are also limitations such as the fact that CPFP carve out is =
not applied<br>to package transactions. #20833 also disables RBF in package=
 validation; this<br>proposal overrides that to allow packages to use RBF.<=
br><br>## Proposed Changes<br><br>The next step in the Package Mempool Acce=
pt project is to implement submission<br>to mempool, initially through RPC =
only. This allows us to test the submission<br>logic before exposing it on =
P2P.<br><br>### Summary<br><br>- Packages may contain already-in-mempool tr=
ansactions.<br>- Packages are 2 generations, Multi-Parent-1-Child.<br>- Fee=
-related checks use the package feerate. This means that wallets can<br>cre=
ate a package that utilizes CPFP.<br>- Parents are allowed to RBF mempool t=
ransactions with a set of rules similar<br>=C2=A0 to BIP125. This enables a=
 combination of CPFP and RBF, where a<br>transaction&#39;s descendant fees =
pay for replacing mempool conflicts.<br><br>There is a draft implementation=
 in [#22290][1]. It is WIP, but feedback is<br>always welcome.<br><br>### D=
etails<br><br>#### Packages May Contain Already-in-Mempool Transactions<br>=
<br>A package may contain transactions that are already in the mempool. We =
remove<br>(&quot;deduplicate&quot;) those transactions from the package for=
 the purposes of package<br>mempool acceptance. If a package is empty after=
 deduplication, we do nothing.<br><br>*Rationale*: Mempools vary across the=
 network. It&#39;s possible for a parent to be<br>accepted to the mempool o=
f a peer on its own due to differences in policy and<br>fee market fluctuat=
ions. We should not reject or penalize the entire package for<br>an individ=
ual transaction as that could be a censorship vector.<br><br>#### Packages =
Are Multi-Parent-1-Child<br><br>Only packages of a specific topology are pe=
rmitted. Namely, a package is exactly<br>1 child with all of its unconfirme=
d parents. After deduplication, the package<br>may be exactly the same, emp=
ty, 1 child, 1 child with just some of its<br>unconfirmed parents, etc. Not=
e that it&#39;s possible for the parents to be indirect<br>descendants/ance=
stors of one another, or for parent and child to share a parent,<br>so we c=
annot make any other topology assumptions.<br><br>*Rationale*: This allows =
for fee-bumping by CPFP. Allowing multiple parents<br>makes it possible to =
fee-bump a batch of transactions. Restricting packages to a<br>defined topo=
logy is also easier to reason about and simplifies the validation<br>logic =
greatly. Multi-parent-1-child allows us to think of the package as one big<=
br>transaction, where:<br><br>- Inputs =3D all the inputs of parents + inpu=
ts of the child that come from<br>=C2=A0 confirmed UTXOs<br>- Outputs =3D a=
ll the outputs of the child + all outputs of the parents that<br>=C2=A0 are=
n&#39;t spent by other transactions in the package<br><br>Examples of packa=
ges that follow this rule (variations of example A show some<br>possibiliti=
es after deduplication): ![image][15]<br><br>#### Fee-Related Checks Use Pa=
ckage Feerate<br><br>Package Feerate =3D the total modified fees divided by=
 the total virtual size of<br>all transactions in the package.<br><br>To me=
et the two feerate requirements of a mempool, i.e., the pre-configured<br>m=
inimum relay feerate (`minRelayTxFee`) and dynamic mempool minimum feerate,=
 the<br>total package feerate is used instead of the individual feerate. Th=
e individual<br>transactions are allowed to be below feerate requirements i=
f the package meets<br>the feerate requirements. For example, the parent(s)=
 in the package can have 0<br>fees but be paid for by the child.<br><br>*Ra=
tionale*: This can be thought of as &quot;CPFP within a package,&quot; solv=
ing the<br>issue of a parent not meeting minimum fees on its own. This allo=
ws L2<br>applications to adjust their fees at broadcast time instead of ove=
rshooting or<br>risking getting stuck/pinned.<br><br>We use the package fee=
rate of the package *after deduplication*.<br><br>*Rationale*: =C2=A0It wou=
ld be incorrect to use the fees of transactions that are<br>already in the =
mempool, as we do not want a transaction&#39;s fees to be<br>double-counted=
 for both its individual RBF and package RBF.<br><br>Examples F and G [14] =
show the same package, but P1 is submitted individually before<br>the packa=
ge in example G. In example F, we can see that the 300vB package pays<br>an=
 additional 200sat in fees, which is not enough to pay for its own bandwidt=
h<br>(BIP125#4). In example G, we can see that P1 pays enough to replace M1=
, but<br>using P1&#39;s fees again during package submission would make it =
look like a 300sat<br>increase for a 200vB package. Even including its fees=
 and size would not be<br>sufficient in this example, since the 300sat look=
s like enough for the 300vB<br>package. The calculcation after deduplicatio=
n is 100sat increase for a package<br>of size 200vB, which correctly fails =
BIP125#4. Assume all transactions have a<br>size of 100vB.<br><br>#### Pack=
age RBF<br><br>If a package meets feerate requirements as a package, the pa=
rents in the<br>transaction are allowed to replace-by-fee mempool transacti=
ons. The child cannot<br>replace mempool transactions. Multiple transaction=
s can replace the same<br>transaction, but in order to be valid, none of th=
e transactions can try to<br>replace an ancestor of another transaction in =
the same package (which would thus<br>make its inputs unavailable).<br><br>=
*Rationale*: Even if we are using package feerate, a package will not propa=
gate<br>as intended if RBF still requires each individual transaction to me=
et the<br>feerate requirements.<br><br>We use a set of rules slightly modif=
ied from BIP125 as follows:<br><br>##### Signaling (Rule #1)<br><br>All mem=
pool transactions to be replaced must signal replaceability.<br><br>*Ration=
ale*: Package RBF signaling logic should be the same for package RBF and<br=
>single transaction acceptance. This would be updated if single transaction=
<br>validation moves to full RBF.<br><br>##### New Unconfirmed Inputs (Rule=
 #2)<br><br>A package may include new unconfirmed inputs, but the ancestor =
feerate of the<br>child must be at least as high as the ancestor feerates o=
f every transaction<br>being replaced. This is contrary to BIP125#2, which =
states &quot;The replacement<br>transaction may only include an unconfirmed=
 input if that input was included in<br>one of the original transactions. (=
An unconfirmed input spends an output from a<br>currently-unconfirmed trans=
action.)&quot;<br><br>*Rationale*: The purpose of BIP125#2 is to ensure tha=
t the replacement<br>transaction has a higher ancestor score than the origi=
nal transaction(s) (see<br>[comment][13]). Example H [16] shows how adding =
a new unconfirmed input can lower the<br>ancestor score of the replacement =
transaction. P1 is trying to replace M1, and<br>spends an unconfirmed outpu=
t of M2. P1 pays 800sat, M1 pays 600sat, and M2 pays<br>100sat. Assume all =
transactions have a size of 100vB. While, in isolation, P1<br>looks like a =
better mining candidate than M1, it must be mined with M2, so its<br>ancest=
or feerate is actually 4.5sat/vB.=C2=A0 This is lower than M1&#39;s ancesto=
r<br>feerate, which is 6sat/vB.<br><br>In package RBF, the rule analogous t=
o BIP125#2 would be &quot;none of the<br>transactions in the package can sp=
end new unconfirmed inputs.&quot; Example J [17] shows<br>why, if any of th=
e package transactions have ancestors, package feerate is no<br>longer accu=
rate. Even though M2 and M3 are not ancestors of P1 (which is the<br>replac=
ement transaction in an RBF), we&#39;re actually interested in the entire<b=
r>package. A miner should mine M1 which is 5sat/vB instead of M2, M3, P1, P=
2, and<br>P3, which is only 4sat/vB. The Package RBF rule cannot be loosene=
d to only allow<br>the child to have new unconfirmed inputs, either, becaus=
e it can still cause us<br>to overestimate the package&#39;s ancestor score=
.<br><br>However, enforcing a rule analogous to BIP125#2 would not only mak=
e Package RBF<br>less useful, but would also break Package RBF for packages=
 with parents already<br>in the mempool: if a package parent has already be=
en submitted, it would look<br>like the child is spending a &quot;new&quot;=
 unconfirmed input. In example K [18], we&#39;re<br>looking to replace M1 w=
ith the entire package including P1, P2, and P3. We must<br>consider the ca=
se where one of the parents is already in the mempool (in this<br>case, P2)=
, which means we must allow P3 to have new unconfirmed inputs. However,<br>=
M2 lowers the ancestor score of P3 to 4.3sat/vB, so we should not replace M=
1<br>with this package.<br><br>Thus, the package RBF rule regarding new unc=
onfirmed inputs is less strict than<br>BIP125#2. However, we still achieve =
the same goal of requiring the replacement<br>transactions to have a ancest=
or score at least as high as the original ones. As<br>a result, the entire =
package is required to be a higher feerate mining candidate<br>than each of=
 the replaced transactions.<br><br>Another note: the [comment][13] above th=
e BIP125#2 code in the original RBF<br>implementation suggests that the rul=
e was intended to be temporary.<br><br>##### Absolute Fee (Rule #3)<br><br>=
The package must increase the absolute fee of the mempool, i.e. the total f=
ees<br>of the package must be higher than the absolute fees of the mempool =
transactions<br>it replaces. Combined with the CPFP rule above, this differ=
s from BIP125 Rule #3<br>- an individual transaction in the package may hav=
e lower fees than the<br>=C2=A0 transaction(s) it is replacing. In fact, it=
 may have 0 fees, and the child<br>pays for RBF.<br><br>##### Feerate (Rule=
 #4)<br><br>The package must pay for its own bandwidth; the package feerate=
 must be higher<br>than the replaced transactions by at least minimum relay=
 feerate<br>(`incrementalRelayFee`). Combined with the CPFP rule above, thi=
s differs from<br>BIP125 Rule #4 - an individual transaction in the package=
 can have a lower<br>feerate than the transaction(s) it is replacing. In fa=
ct, it may have 0 fees,<br>and the child pays for RBF.<br><br>##### Total N=
umber of Replaced Transactions (Rule #5)<br><br>The package cannot replace =
more than 100 mempool transactions. This is identical<br>to BIP125 Rule #5.=
<br><br>### Expected FAQs<br><br>1. Is it possible for only some of the pac=
kage to make it into the mempool?<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Yes, it is. However, =
since we evict transactions from the mempool by<br>descendant score and the=
 package child is supposed to be sponsoring the fees of<br>its parents, the=
 most common scenario would be all-or-nothing. This is<br>incentive-compati=
ble. In fact, to be conservative, package validation should<br>begin by try=
ing to submit all of the transactions individually, and only use the<br>pac=
kage mempool acceptance logic if the parents fail due to low feerate.<br><b=
r>2. Should we allow packages to contain already-confirmed transactions?<br=
><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 No, for practical reasons. In mempool validation, we act=
ually aren&#39;t able to<br>tell with 100% confidence if we are looking at =
a transaction that has already<br>confirmed, because we look up inputs usin=
g a UTXO set. If we have historical<br>block data, it&#39;s possible to loo=
k for it, but this is inefficient, not always<br>possible for pruning nodes=
, and unnecessary because we&#39;re not going to do<br>anything with the tr=
ansaction anyway. As such, we already have the expectation<br>that transact=
ion relay is somewhat &quot;stateful&quot; i.e. nobody should be relaying<b=
r>transactions that have already been confirmed. Similarly, we shouldn&#39;=
t be<br>relaying packages that contain already-confirmed transactions.<br><=
br>[1]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22290" target=3D=
"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22290</a><br>[2]: <a href=
=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/1f0b563738199ca60d32b4ba779797fc97=
d040fe/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-size-calculations" target=3D"_blank">=
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/1f0b563738199ca60d32b4ba779797fc97d040=
fe/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-size-calculations</a><br>[3]: <a href=3D"=
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/94f83534e4b771944af7d9ed0f40746f392=
eb75e/src/policy/policy.cpp#L282" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitc=
oin/bitcoin/blob/94f83534e4b771944af7d9ed0f40746f392eb75e/src/policy/policy=
.cpp#L282</a><br>[4]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16=
400" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16400</a><br=
>[5]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21062" target=3D"_=
blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21062</a><br>[6]: <a href=3D=
"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22675" target=3D"_blank">https://g=
ithub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22675</a><br>[7]: <a href=3D"https://github.=
com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22796" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoi=
n/bitcoin/pull/22796</a><br>[8]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitc=
oin/pull/20833" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2=
0833</a><br>[9]: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21800" =
target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21800</a><br>[10]=
: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16401" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16401</a><br>[11]: <a href=3D"ht=
tps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19621" target=3D"_blank">https://gith=
ub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19621</a><br>[12]: <a href=3D"https://github.co=
m/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://gi=
thub.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki</a><br>[13]: <a href=
=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871/files#diff-34d21af3c614ea3=
cee120df276c9c4ae95053830d7f1d3deaf009a4625409ad2R1101-R1104" target=3D"_bl=
ank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871/files#diff-34d21af3c614ea=
3cee120df276c9c4ae95053830d7f1d3deaf009a4625409ad2R1101-R1104</a><br>[14]: =
<a href=3D"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567078-075=
a971c-0619-4339-9168-b41fd2b90c28.png" target=3D"_blank">https://user-image=
s.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567078-075a971c-0619-4339-9168-b41fd2b9=
0c28.png</a><br>[15]: <a href=3D"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/=
25183001/132856734-fc17da75-f875-44bb-b954-cb7a1725cc0d.png" target=3D"_bla=
nk">https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132856734-fc17da75-f=
875-44bb-b954-cb7a1725cc0d.png</a><br>[16]: <a href=3D"https://user-images.=
githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567347-a3e2e4a8-ae9c-49f8-abb9-81e8e0aba2=
24.png" target=3D"_blank">https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2518300=
1/133567347-a3e2e4a8-ae9c-49f8-abb9-81e8e0aba224.png</a><br>[17]: <a href=
=3D"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567370-21566d0e-3=
6c8-4831-b1a8-706634540af3.png" target=3D"_blank">https://user-images.githu=
busercontent.com/25183001/133567370-21566d0e-36c8-4831-b1a8-706634540af3.pn=
g</a><br>[18]: <a href=3D"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2518300=
1/133567444-bfff1142-439f-4547-800a-2ba2b0242bcb.png" target=3D"_blank">htt=
ps://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567444-bfff1142-439f-454=
7-800a-2ba2b0242bcb.png</a><br>[19]: <a href=3D"https://user-images.githubu=
sercontent.com/25183001/133456219-0bb447cb-dcb4-4a31-b9c1-7d86205b68bc.png"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/13345=
6219-0bb447cb-dcb4-4a31-b9c1-7d86205b68bc.png</a><br>[20]: <a href=3D"https=
://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132857787-7b7c6f56-af96-44c8-=
8d78-983719888c19.png" target=3D"_blank">https://user-images.githubusercont=
ent.com/25183001/132857787-7b7c6f56-af96-44c8-8d78-983719888c19.png</a><br>=
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000006411cf05cc7f8f89--