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
|
Return-Path: <user@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF78CBD4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 May 2018 03:57:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149082.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.82])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E8A284
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 May 2018 03:57:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245])
by punt22.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w4L3v3Mj095756;
Mon, 21 May 2018 04:57:03 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from user@petertodd.org)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w4L3v1VA071025
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
Mon, 21 May 2018 04:57:02 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from user@petertodd.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4921840103;
Mon, 21 May 2018 03:57:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CBDB020322; Sun, 20 May 2018 23:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 23:56:58 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20180521035658.vfo4wx6ifum2s2o5@petertodd.org>
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org>
<87vabnq9ui.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CADZtCShwOV+GuJ5__GMi9hd2_X=BztASPBihDXakU3Mjb39wcQ@mail.gmail.com>
<87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cl5oyjjna7yuxyre"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Server-Quench: 0544c01e-5cab-11e8-a283-9cb654bb2504
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZIVwkA IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdAMUFVQNAgsB Am4bW1BeVVp7WWA7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUwEUAloA YG8eVRhydQAIeXxy ZkAsXnVfWBd6dBNg
Rx0FR3AHZDJodTEd WENFflAGdgZOLE1H b1B7GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAFc QQALIho1eXE3JAMR DwseFDMjFFcJEE3Y
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Matt Corallo <matt@chaincode.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 21 May 2018 03:57:10 -0000
--cl5oyjjna7yuxyre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:14:06PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com> writes:
> > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce=
RBF
> > on the spending tx?
>=20
> Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so
> we're actually good here.
>=20
> However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a
> large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:
>=20
> will be replaced by a new transaction...:
>=20
> 3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum
> paid by the original transactions.
>=20
> I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of
> up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the
> consequences of dropping this heuristic? Peter?
We've discussed this before: that rule prevents bandwidth usage DoS attacks=
on
the mempool; it's not a "heuristic". If you drop it, an attacker can repeat=
edly
broadcast and replace a series of transactions to use up tx relay bandwidth=
for
significantly lower cost than otherwise.
Though these days with relatively high minimum fees that may not matter.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--cl5oyjjna7yuxyre
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAlsCQ4cACgkQJIFAPaXw
kfug+wf/bw2RLQBetGf1URpG7WaljSMYwtJYS4uAMbFi7M1xcFm0BURMhhT+13Kp
v4bUkHMNYVF7p8Ut0w6pVzkmNedOQ9rYPqJORIbys8K4BUGFAoOA6oiDgz6EDdt0
nMGduFII04xxICGHK83h0/57f/5s/UESkVhPMO4+y+55m37FcJ6pcWXWzsCbbatj
PX8sRc8vCnkjjkF5mK7ypl2vnaBdSpfEBWv2unkjLrcKo68Evrkn1pjdNwJuF+9h
lqQEdal5NWv2zprIOwQ1SUihMu8HT25+6mHKopZBbII1rOwDeGAetdthPMmFtZ1R
bcTbigCtA/zA9KcmdmQ4Unsl5zP4SA==
=R5me
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--cl5oyjjna7yuxyre--
|
