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: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238B7C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:32:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49E6400D3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:32:26 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org E49E6400D3
Authentication-Results: smtp2.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=u3/P6/bu
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_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 smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id NELhs8Pahm-n
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 8456A401AF
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.26])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8456A401AF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3875C00C9;
Mon, 7 Nov 2022 09:32:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Nov 2022 09:32:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=1667831542; x=1667917942; bh=y
pVveW+NNy2vbTzx1U1ti37uzWIYpjQDEsN3LaJOEog=; b=u3/P6/bu2OBrkRBDG
P/I8iXZafnrASA2NGo2YB+LJjVC8lmtXlWCC+XvplPh2/iaxAFzNeCDd1EH9cIyP
7xYqXcWtLsxQVxMOoAwmFJBvoY5ajJgRNCpaL0TS8aTKXTsfbrWAkuUvmNxrvXMS
ajsHZnUMKwCqNnx97rgJPJ059bXcpM2K3iIRP+QYVsC4e/9q4Qo0txYopAmrn1lb
SW6FaRqTEL01FJlKkVHWa7hnM8+kxEKkFOkVWFtSf3v02X1HtZz95TS27uCwCHl+
2tXGe+uAdKX6sVGzs98ko+bPNj4g4s4kRmfpVh6mIE4B7tC8zymKKtPYt2s4xmil
G97Zg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:9hZpY9689NeYi2-1mF9t6zxunG4FNyOMsk-DwmHlxOe3uEe3JLy0IA>
<xme:9hZpY676gb24Ucz8jWbrgx4_8DIln_461YmyOIsBi9iPHBHpinCkaWKHpdTIqyyyM
O13_nGK9PWSgpY62yk>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:9hZpY0doWGv52sZlPh8JqtECF0ny001Of_Ip7uvPXvM6OkbB_nSmRl5ex38QZ9dr>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrvdekgdeigecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
fjughrpeffhffvufgfjghfkfggtgfgsehtqhhmtddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghr
ucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg
hrnhephfetueelffdvudejjeetjeejgfejfeelieeijeduieeivdeugefffeeugeelgfeu
necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphgvth
gvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:9hZpY2KcqxrTRc-nhZ7q-XCt2X_IzX4nzVNiWcf_tCua495ZW5zMZw>
<xmx:9hZpYxJmLezaqPRcj4ZpwaNMTRjI14HbXZhEG4WuV2E23lprBdrVGA>
<xmx:9hZpY_w9h47DVqDAtIAwNNmQnIOxZN0UQHowMQFkvLCDqeweWWLO3g>
<xmx:9hZpY-EUMJDet_l83i789uFBjXqrwo6Q7Utbdtd1lz2xsO_BwJP0Ug>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon,
7 Nov 2022 09:32:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:32:17 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: email@yancy.lol,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
yancy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <16eb6a50691ccc661310051de6b8e2c0@yancy.lol>
References: <16eb6a50691ccc661310051de6b8e2c0@yancy.lol>
Message-ID: <0A6B5781-EBC6-4D98-8AE8-43436B5F73EA@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On mempool policy consistency
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: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:32:27 -0000
On November 3, 2022 5:06:52 PM AST, yancy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
>
>AJ/Antoine et al
>
>> What should folks wanting to do coinjoins/dualfunding/dlcs/etc do to
>> solve that problem if they have only opt-in RBF available?
>
>Assuming Alice is a well funded advisory, with enough resources to spam t=
he network so that enough nodes see her malicious transaction first, how do=
es full-rbf solve this vs=2E opt-in rbf?
First of all, to make things clear, remember that the attacks were talking=
about are aimed at _preventing_ a transaction from getting mined=2E Alice =
wants to cheaply broadcast something with low fees that won't get mined soo=
n (if ever), that prevents a protocol from making forward progress=2E
With full-rbf, who saw what transaction first doesn't matter: the higher f=
ee paying transaction will always(*) replace the lower fee one=2E With opt-=
in RBF, spamming the network can beat out the alternative=2E
*) So what's the catch? Well, due to limitations in today's mempool implem=
entation, sometimes we can't fully evaluate which tx pays the higher fee=2E=
For example, if Alice spams the network with very _large_ numbers transact=
ions spending that input, the current mempool code doesn't even try to figu=
re out if a replacement is better=2E
But those limitations are likely to be fixable=2E And even right now, with=
out fixing them, Alice still has to use a lot more money to pull off these =
attacks with full-rbf=2E So full-rbf definitely improves the situation even=
if it doesn't solve the problem completely=2E
|
