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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71354C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 01:56:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F13260F57
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 01:56:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 PVAsbYTDNPmd
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 01:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99A3360F48
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Feb 2022 01:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1nEiPR-0001dW-62; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:56:42 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:56:37 +1000
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:56:37 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien@acinq.fr>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20220201015637.GA4302@erisian.com.au>
References: <CAFXO6=LGbaur6XQrE+6a6mAAHXduOCXoWPTgPosxAG59ZkK6Gg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALZpt+EjqKbhnN_5jy3kvYpMvjN8=iwRzMLSM7yS8_j-WzLrBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACdvm3P1co1HDFKNxpHRe_JX_UPNw_P5qgL5cHCM=Qs+kR=B_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACdvm3P1co1HDFKNxpHRe_JX_UPNw_P5qgL5cHCM=Qs+kR=B_A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Improving RBF Policy
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, 01 Feb 2022 01:56:46 -0000
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:57:52PM +0100, Bastien TEINTURIER via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'd like to propose a different way of looking at descendants that makes
> it easier to design the new rules. The way I understand it, limiting the
> impact on descendant transactions is only important for DoS protection,
> not for incentive compatibility. I would argue that after evictions,
> descendant transactions will be submitted again (because they represent
> transactions that people actually want to make),
I think that's backwards: we're trying to discourage people from wasting
the network's bandwidth, which they would do by publishing transactions
that will never get confirmed -- if they were to eventually get confirmed
it wouldn't be a waste of bandwith, after all. But if the original
descendent txs were that sort of spam, then they may well not be
submitted again if the ancestor tx reaches a fee rate that's actually
likely to confirm.
I wonder sometimes if it could be sufficient to just have a relay rate
limit and prioritise by ancestor feerate though. Maybe something like:
- instead of adding txs to each peers setInventoryTxToSend immediately,
set a mempool flag "relayed=false"
- on a time delay, add the top N (by fee rate) "relayed=false" txs to
each peer's setInventoryTxToSend and mark them as "relayed=true";
calculate how much kB those txs were, and do this again after
SIZE/RATELIMIT seconds
- don't include "relayed=false" txs when building blocks?
- keep high-feerate evicted txs around for a while in case they get
mined by someone else to improve compact block relay, a la the
orphan pool?
That way if the network is busy, any attempt to do low fee rate tx spam
will just cause those txs to sit as relayed=false until they're replaced
or the network becomes less busy and they're worth relaying. And your
actual mempool accept policy can just be "is this tx a higher fee rate
than the txs it replaces"...
> Even if bitcoin core releases a new version with updated RBF rules, as a
> wallet you'll need to keep using the old rules for a long time if you
> want to be safe.
All you need is for there to be *a* path that follows the new relay rules
and gets from your node/wallet to perhaps 10% of hashpower, which seems
like something wallet providers could construct relatively quickly?
Cheers,
aj
|
