path: root/35/5be1dc0664bbe35d2ae58f6a4466e06592d2ad

Return-Path: <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480C0C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CA381AF6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:24 +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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jarah8UErlhU
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E54D581A1C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id s1so5537281ilj.0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=Z9AyOVWAvx7OFPF9C0fhWivqt6InT23eB4d9HE7b+0s=;
 b=Fi4MOhHHKINF+04MLD2up4oAKelvISSzZTLJpqnWnu5HdqNrH0EO138g015O9hYC8b
 JZ9PJgPBakfs7CWTbS6BDXUJmf6tqHaEl3LPALmsh8WwIghIPSk8kaohFZsf6KkSzp4+
 IjdDlsv19mjSSb9MZviTZtgYVxfjAdwIIQS9IJnf7snXyoI7xXpWE/AXP1sQ8F5YFZsI
 EyGgjTsWpYyY+XaQAv0YX/b4g8gHiJNeoizyqLlwSw09fgQvo+QSryEJlzJKsyYGhjdO
 maOXL4U+lPaOdtWQauURFmAi8DsrXwdZjagMZlppZkPig91IJbSfJx8orYSODKtJOhBd
 1Oag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=Z9AyOVWAvx7OFPF9C0fhWivqt6InT23eB4d9HE7b+0s=;
 b=3Pfi68ED8ysq4kOCX8AX4houUCE1AweZE1yX9SYbsOinxqXt4Iv0X+3WLqb2K/4ZGT
 N0GgaIuLYqFYbyC+yfPzOVcDwHikVlcs7vad2j+QC5tX3e+q+8wQQWc+6JRKhJUcsJHg
 +4OlOPs58eGHyM9jt5f+LRA5dbUeHbRSQGm5nuqOS3D6GLHUP/f2eWFl8Rjl49GUtIE6
 nLzPOMgkbgYGkqJKd86eaE3q0dwHZFDzUHBHYMQqruZL+y8i+jTplPTPYTPNnR05aE2m
 pONPXq68npB4TOPQW2J+vm2MNzk+1aTI9H85gqGrAlL4zu4TbhSmf1gBm0zcEF7/feUI
 33Bw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+dfX8dRjdOCexUrvHESTHyRiW0HSKv377l1zCSoqZv6645JZ8v
 O4RVtsO/Q6ZUZ4rCW602tbDeKJzX4VwzP5l2Rdix4b7Zd7g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tZSr/9G2X0hoxCCH2lRCcEUeWWbRNd7AL8oIlnwT5tAcov6aU6/zdWXAZcWHY6rOJ8rkiUuAc/nLQbEeAV39A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b87:b0:2d6:5e74:217a with SMTP id
 h7-20020a056e021b8700b002d65e74217amr1376108ili.74.1655166321883; Mon, 13 Jun
 2022 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:25:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CALZpt+GOh-7weEypT9JrzcwthZJqHOfj7sf9FMuqi5_FZv0g7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9011405e15d7093"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 02:51:29 +0000
Subject: [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, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:24 -0000

--000000000000a9011405e15d7093
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi list,

Recent discussions among LN devs have brought back on the surface concerns
about the security of multi-party funded transactions (coinjoins,
dual-funded LN channels, on-chain DLCs, ...). It turns out there is a
low-fruit, naive DoS vector playable against the funding flow of any such
construction due to the lack of existent full-rbf transaction-relay
topology on today's p2p network [0] [1]. While it does not consist in a
direct loss of funds, if exploited well I think it's annoying enough to
inflict significant timevalue loss or fee-bumping waste
to the future providers or distributed swarm of users doing multi-party
funded transactions. Of course, it can be fixed one layer above by
introducing either fidelity bonds or a reliable centralized coordinator,
though at the price of an overhead per-participant ressources cost and loss
in system openness [1].

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 subset of
the network running full-rbf and enabling propagation of honest multi-party
transactions to the interested miners, replacing potential non-signaling
double-spend from a malicious counterparty. Moving towards that direction,
I've submitted a small patch against Bitcoin Core enabling it to turn on
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.

If you're a node operator curious to play with full-rbf, feel free to
connect to this node or spawn up a toy, public node yourself. There is a
##uafrbf libera chat if you would like information on the settings or
looking for full-rbf friends (though that step could be automated in the
future by setting up a dedicated network bit and reserving a few outbound
slots for them).

If you're a mining operator looking to increase your income, you might be
interested to experiment with full-rbf as a policy. Indeed, in the future I
believe the multi-party transactions issuers who need full-rbf to secure
their funding flow should connect by default to full-rbf peers. One can
conjecture that their transactions are likely to be more compelling in
their feerate as their liquidity needs are higher than the simple
transaction. For today, I think we have really few standards and bitcoin
softwares relying on multi-party funded transactions [4].

If you're a Bitcoin user or business and you don't like full-rbf, please
express an opinion on how it might affect your software/operations. I'm
always interested to learn more about mempool and transaction-relay
interactions with upper-layers and applications and to listen to feedback
in those areas, and I guess a lot of other Bitcoin researchers/devs too. I
know there have been a lot of concerns about full-rbf in the past, however
I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem has matured a lot since then.

Any mistakes or missing context is my own.

Cheers,
Antoine

[0] For more info about replace-by-fee, see
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/replace-by-fee/

[1] For more details about the DoS vector, see
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html

[2] E.g I think it does not affect the Lightning Pool service, as there is
a preliminary step where the participant funds are locked first in a 2-of-2
with the coordinator before being committed in the multi-party batch
transaction.

[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353

[4] E.g DLCs :
https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/blob/master/Transactions.md
; Lightning dual-funded channel :
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/851

--000000000000a9011405e15d7093
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi list,<br><br>Recent discussions among LN devs have brou=
ght back on the surface concerns about the security of multi-party funded t=
ransactions (coinjoins, dual-funded LN channels, on-chain DLCs, ...). It tu=
rns out there is a low-fruit, naive DoS vector playable against the funding=
 flow of any such construction due to the lack of existent full-rbf transac=
tion-relay topology on today&#39;s p2p network [0] [1]. While it does not c=
onsist in a direct loss of funds, if exploited well I think it&#39;s annoyi=
ng enough to inflict significant timevalue loss or fee-bumping waste <br>to=
 the future providers or distributed swarm of users doing multi-party funde=
d transactions. Of course, it can be fixed one layer above by introducing e=
ither fidelity bonds or a reliable centralized coordinator, though at the p=
rice of an overhead per-participant ressources cost and loss in system open=
ness [1].<br><br>For that reason, I believe it would be beneficial to the f=
lourishing of multi-party funded transactions to fix the Dos vector by seei=
ng a subset of the network running full-rbf and enabling propagation of hon=
est multi-party transactions to the interested miners, replacing potential =
non-signaling double-spend from a malicious counterparty. Moving towards th=
at direction, I&#39;ve submitted a small patch against Bitcoin Core enablin=
g it to turn on full-rbf as a policy, still under review [3]. The default s=
etting stays **false**, i.e keeping opt-in RBF as a default replacement pol=
icy. I&#39;ve started to run the patch on a public node at 146.190.224.15.<=
br><br>If you&#39;re a node operator curious to play with full-rbf, feel fr=
ee to connect to this node or spawn up a toy, public node yourself. There i=
s a ##uafrbf libera chat if you would like information on the settings or l=
ooking for full-rbf friends (though that step could be automated in the fut=
ure by setting up a dedicated network bit and reserving a few outbound slot=
s for them).<br><br>If you&#39;re a mining operator looking to increase you=
r income, you might be interested to experiment with full-rbf as a policy. =
Indeed, in the future I believe the multi-party transactions issuers who ne=
ed full-rbf to secure their funding flow should connect by default to full-=
rbf peers. One can conjecture that their transactions are likely to be more=
 compelling in their feerate as their liquidity needs are higher than the s=
imple transaction. For today, I think we have really few standards and bitc=
oin softwares relying on multi-party funded transactions [4].<br><br>If you=
&#39;re a Bitcoin user or business and you don&#39;t like full-rbf, please =
express an opinion on how it might affect your software/operations. I&#39;m=
 always interested to learn more about mempool and transaction-relay intera=
ctions with upper-layers and applications and to listen to feedback in thos=
e areas, and I guess a lot of other Bitcoin researchers/devs too. I know th=
ere have been a lot of concerns about full-rbf in the past, however I belie=
ve the Bitcoin ecosystem has matured a lot since then.<br><br>Any mistakes =
or missing context is my own.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Antoine<br><br>[0] For more=
 info about replace-by-fee, see <a href=3D"https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics=
/replace-by-fee/">https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/replace-by-fee/</a><br><=
br>[1] For more details about the DoS vector, see <a href=3D"https://lists.=
linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html">https://l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html</a><b=
r><br>[2] E.g I think it does not affect the Lightning Pool service, as the=
re is a preliminary step where the participant funds are locked first in a =
2-of-2 with the coordinator before being committed in the multi-party batch=
 transaction.<br><br>[3] <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull=
/25353">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353</a><br><br>[4] E.g DL=
Cs : <a href=3D"https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/blob/maste=
r/Transactions.md">https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/blob/ma=
ster/Transactions.md</a> ; Lightning dual-funded channel : <a href=3D"https=
://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/851">https://github.com/lightning/bolts/=
pull/851</a><br></div>

--000000000000a9011405e15d7093--