path: root/6e/355dcc89f2ce773536569e75903142cce221e4

Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D223FC0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBCC8224A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 7BBCC8224A
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=ZbkyTXos
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 G7uHe_8-CJbe
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:26:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B7C8223B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:26:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 60B7C8223B
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3985C0102
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 06:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 16 Aug 2023 06:26:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type: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=1692181562; x=1692267962; bh=TllDayObbcLSt
 /pUHBPrZTV2O87YdYJ+6jvhVy0pCbA=; b=ZbkyTXosWBL+YkV7QiyIeBgLjZNz8
 +wq2gnblPfkmPsNt4vzSnUQu2GqQkVHYiJHdQZh//9mRQzsnH0HfinCQzxmtkd3u
 VieFkDpqxVKjgBz3Fbz0aHZGBQMW7FMHnxbDDZRNDuF+lu+w6pElad6Ef2XyTzs1
 7lrGESLWuyVgbXk7pg6+u2zU2nvRTOKR0AwaNGig/GIQHAsIGiMKladjTZkSLxAk
 zCJq9RvVqM/4uISQBMJ0IEINmwo97CzLKiYxXvA2GwctyupejxMkLMb2q3Q7W8tr
 Ldhkr3RIpwBgpGojVGDWXeRa0RFUXs+jul8jCLSZ/ucG6s8pvJsA1fsgA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:OaTcZG7XKDpanivoYUQL1nsn1v7VMldKJ63k2dsCnP_xIdQN_3gnig>
 <xme:OaTcZP6pTrpCriJ-2tCFzK3l_ocdLKdCC_Fs2h430ZYwJ7Q0I30mg7ZvRlTXc-T_Y
 kRBBCNDsFHyR5nvBYg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:OaTcZFftwPFpaGIWAUiWGKPuJ2m0kQopZfowxMRAu1ARzfJYqoQFPAMa>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedruddtledgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
 fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
 uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesghdtre
 ertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgvrhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthho
 uggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeihfeljeevvdfhteetheeutdfgieehue
 ekheeiuefggeekudefffduvdeufeefleenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm
 pdguohhusghlvghsphgvnhgurdhphidpshhtrggtkhgvrhdrnhgvfihspdhpvghtvghrth
 houggurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf
 rhhomhepphgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:OaTcZDKkeMd0OpF87KH2Xx4F74xvyTo_a2kJ7xmANgtGtvH58jMRLA>
 <xmx:OaTcZKKZPkhxQC3RC1BpvWTkMINTupPpzwZRPQUIasYwZSvRC0VoYQ>
 <xmx:OaTcZEyS7Z7_Wp53fDteW5bux36HrlOcsdxUBmz1e59pMqNnhxhL2A>
 <xmx:OqTcZBV5ssCViAwukWA2CiPZeHukwb1KZXUWLk1ztiIcvtL_93-Bbw>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed,
 16 Aug 2023 06:26:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id 969965F843; Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:25:58 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:25:58 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZNykNtFb/mMfk79L@petertodd.org>
References: <CACkWPs_jKUCBPhvj3mGYQu6erLE5qKxXorXAtJpuGCKSaSjVwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACkWPs-jW-bae2oywp-LswFhmWhNAFZEFg7M=rXLi6nMGLUgRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZMuhsGj+tsv+xBzW@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cgm7x1PMMzBjvME4"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZMuhsGj+tsv+xBzW@petertodd.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Full-RBF testing: at least 31% of hash power,
 over at least 4 pools, is mining full-RBF right now
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:26:10 -0000


--cgm7x1PMMzBjvME4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since Andrew Chow criticized my use of OTS(1) to measure full-RBF adoption,
I've been doing high-fee full-RBF testing to re-confirm my findings.
Specifically, that means sending a high fee tx1 with a fee more than suffic=
ient
to get mined in the next block. Then 30 seconds later, I send tx2, a double
spend with an even higher fee, removing one of tx1's outputs. Propagation w=
as
verified for each full-RBF double-spend by checking debug.log on another ve=
ry
well-connected node.

Results: >31% of hash power, over at least 4 different pools, is mining
full-RBF at the moment, assuming Binance Pool is mining full-RBF with half
their hashing power (see below for details). This finding confirms my OTS
calendar research, which found similar results.


Specifically, in my testing yesterday I successfully did the following full=
-RBF
double-spends:

Antpool: 2ebe68edca320dabdd8b39ebae5f18efaac829055058a2c0f4bc2b37c69cd88c
         dac9895795efa3956cc775b4f48a5d2b01fa0ea0d7a915fa350baa4779d2e0e9
         b7d43485bf8f0f9792ba6889ab2f53fb462aa4997f3995d9d027375993fa7907
         e2cd91093399dcad5ad3fd73627e497c5e808434ecc7aaec13d9d488973f099c
         5bb7e7d6c34dfd2ae65466a2968a0e500ef25d9b70f7f2b299203dffc1a1b10d
         ad7d2f74eab240726604dfd66231f52ac7778567028cf818387dc9395474f63b
         1ddb11bad477e8b5bcdb36dbaa26065ae8e3c37b39b37a2b34780b98274bd076
         f16bb35670b66ab3c8ccbbaf5f06da5f311e9b05a02b23a77a6fec5e8e5951a4
         b6123a7c126b7937a23bf93cce09358bc2c1047a3bd20fad47bf187e453aadc5
         66f3da902d43ab0a2561d0477c7050d057bb0f69ade79015494363ad08ed172d
         17a6995a757e027b2a51b9cc58635b29553ccc6c164555c0ed922074a23bcbfe
Poolin: 68ca9ee95748dc98ba24018ea64c18de31fca552e4753ef012acd0b615cd7384
        477089a1e997a0115b3d4cd1d4ce21eb9dc83c45c14a7f7441e4fc74c3649ba2
EMCDPool: dde0975ad42fd9e03677f64b6c4f7efbe2ec0b6f905206d47893a77ac6336fca
          a0131d4f8cc13d70443cd87f2ee7543e1142640666a88f80d1e0c885c7eb2c12
Binance Pool: fb62691537d92f61dcb8ace979e0947b47dcbc7e9f50e79f77059ba0a669c=
db5
              637c58f3c0447ee99808b37e4f9559096c00ceb0d21130a9254558c4d2d7a=
e63

Anyone running a full-RBF node with debug=3Dmempool can easily verify all t=
hese
double-spends by examining their debug.log files.

With Antpool, Poolin, and EMCDPool, it is most likely that they're mining
full-RBF with ~100% of their hash power. These pools mined every double-spe=
nd
available to them, with the exception of some Antpool blocks found very clo=
se
to when the double-spend was broadcast. Binance Pool did *not* mine a full-=
RBF
replacement on two occasions, which makes me suspect they're mining full-RBF
with less than 100% of their hash power. During this testing, Binance Pool,
AntPool, Poolin, and EMCDPool, also all mined multiple double-spends from my
OTS calendars, further confirming my findings.

My OTS research also found examples of KuCoinPool and ULTIMUSPOOL mining
full-RBF double spends. They didn't find any blocks during this testing, so=
 I
have no data on them with this testing. Luxor _did_ mine some blocks without
mining the double-spends, so at the moment it's reasonable to assume they h=
ave
full-RBF fully or partially disabled, or have some kind of full-RBF propaga=
tion
issue.  They have confirmed similar issues to me in the past (eg employees
unintentionally disabling it on some nodes during an upgrade), so it's like=
ly
that has happened again. MARA Pool also mined some blocks without mining
double-spends, so they too may have full-RBF fully or partially disabled, a=
s I
mentioned in my OTS research.(1)

The tool I used is the following:

    https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob/master/doublespe=
nd.py

Note that this script was written years ago, pre-segwit, and I hastily upda=
ted
it for recent Bitcoin Core/python-bitcoinlib versions. I haven't checked if=
 all
the options like OP_Return outputs and multisig still work, and it doesn't =
even
take segwit into account when calculating fees. Don't use it on a wallet wi=
th
funds you can't afford to lose; it definitely has bugs in it.

For reference, here is the logs from a successful double-spend attempt:

	$ sleep 15 ; ./doublespend.py --fee1 0.00018 --fee2 0.000224 `/home/user/b=
itcoin/src/bitcoin-cli getnewaddress` 0.00001
	DEBUG:root:Delta fee: 0.00002296
	DEBUG:root:Adding new input caec040f4435e98de9ae44a385e301312c5a3cddfb33f1=
bd08e1cf63307f87ce:0 with value 0.00072549 BTC
	DEBUG:root:Delta fee: 0.00003035
	DEBUG:root:Payment tx 01000000000101ce877f3063cfe108bdf133fbdd3c5a2c3101e3=
85a344aee98de935440f04ecca0000000000ffffffff028a0f0100000000001600149e12f3e=
f33ba4ccde4b85978e675c9fe59bb24a2e8030000000000001600149049e0f57ec5899c1eed=
2c5e9aab1c34ff5cec1f02473044022063834a187727c1eceb9b3e6ae9ccd0d369b51af3493=
fafba1d61ed3b273d48f7022049fbe71ecd600c7345fb6002e04275eb8445031df746eceaa6=
e6f5f413f67497012102c56d86e3031851822485d1a2f9f0e402f14b96b64e711d5a2567412=
d1ea49a8b00000000
	INFO:root:Payment tx size: 0.222 KB, fees: 0.00002035, 0.00009166 BTC/KB
	INFO:root:Sent payment tx: 1c28870a78efd1c4616726ea0ca3f9d67f5591aab415222=
e2c9ec6184fc0b4f2
	INFO:root:Sleeping for 30 seconds
	DEBUG:root:Delta fee: 0.00004279
	DEBUG:root:Double-spend tx 01000000000101ce877f3063cfe108bdf133fbdd3c5a2c3=
101e385a344aee98de935440f04ecca0000000000ffffffff01ae0a0100000000001600149e=
12f3ef33ba4ccde4b85978e675c9fe59bb24a20247304402201289c26da70e9ec4424fc2ff7=
194b57384c78c9c986c2efe6771ac6f5fda199702200cefa72560f21cd9abe846078ce13197=
029562102f7a44b8ec50772a851c1799012102c56d86e3031851822485d1a2f9f0e402f14b9=
6b64e711d5a2567412d1ea49a8b00000000
	INFO:root:Double-spend tx size: 0.191 KB, fees: 0.00004279, 0.00022403 BTC=
/KB
	INFO:root:Sent double-spend tx: fb62691537d92f61dcb8ace979e0947b47dcbc7e9f=
50e79f77059ba0a669cdb5

Remember that if you want to replicate this, don't be surprised if it takes
quite a few attempts if you're sending tx1 with next-block fees. A minority=
 of
hash power is mining full-RBF. There's also a chance that in the ~30s or
whatever you wait between tx1 and tx2, a block is found and tx1 gets mined.
This chance is actually even higher than the ~5% you'd expect, because mine=
rs
don't instantly update their block templates.

So if ~30% of hash power is actively mining full-RBF, you might actually ha=
ve a
~20% chance per attempt at succeeding at a naive high-fee/higher-fee
double-spend. Thus there's a (1-20%)^10 =3D 11% chance that 10 attempts in =
a row
fail. Being that unlucky happens all the time; the Gods of Probability,
probably hate you. :)


Finally, research like this is expensive in terms of my time and transaction
fees; research via the OTS calendar approach is essentially free. Donations=
 are
appreciated as no-one is paying me to do full-RBF work or covering these
expenses.

Cheapest/easiest way is via Lightning: https://stacker.news/petertodd

Or on-chain: 1FCYd7j4CThTMzts78rh6iQJLBRGPW9fWv


# References

1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132

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

--cgm7x1PMMzBjvME4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=bODY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cgm7x1PMMzBjvME4--