path: root/d5/5bd5fac7e8eb241d792db29501b61ac99f9adc

Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A65DC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:03:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0669160F8C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:03:23 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 0669160F8C
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
 unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=M21AaGiV
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 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_H2=-0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham 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 KKC740tIkFYc
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:03:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 2765860E92
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [64.147.123.25])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2765860E92
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:03:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45])
 by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9D23200987;
 Tue, 10 Jan 2023 05:03:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 05:03:20 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc: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=
 fm3; t=1673344999; x=1673431399; bh=2LtDd3lAfDcxK2DvwsElJ6dj/dTf
 xPQ/62E5Oc2SC8s=; b=M21AaGiVIaSZb1DBzc+p+gIR96wlmfSTPHoCNw9eTCzF
 QAWASrQU9tnx5F5W2B8on0nc+M8Ca0xRCo4u5eiCnxWEzxC/ILfpnfPu05855u7P
 ITgCwC0dWj/vUG68Xdg0EA63mSPUiwk2t5dXT0oZY0g2CpWUMRWfNKb90WDJBn3Y
 sy4Qh60Noo/+0jkEwpCJ9ERrQXUQPHAlF/wEH2mlBNUadGx3I7dL4QwzMrwUcva8
 7obZ3Lhl8lRf11UndvJBJsqoEEFRBjKK/n/Bi5WecIGQWRBPilVw8lKgVSVEVWB0
 MH7pEKeP4oPQUodpFOa5QnHOuAS54g/z1v7xk1qqvA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:5ze9Y_TlcQlkr4rBT1zbAQaSh-YBsQAZ8MVdwd6DgT1YTSM1alBQMA>
 <xme:5ze9Yww9_jbfVMqilfe4HzwFfS86tl_DlQC1OfE9q6vO-rIDkjCYxIC8zYMmCUljh
 oQh3cg7G0IVvS0AJCM>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:5ze9Y00eiXu1h9-EapJ3iaAESbUZLo3tgTv56gCOW7Vz9t9e9q9WJkfxFz47>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrkeekgdduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
 curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
 uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtre
 ertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgvrhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthho
 uggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegleetffelteektdelffdthfejheduud
 evtefhffeggfejieeijedtjedvtdeiieenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm
 pdhtfihithhtvghrrdgtohhmpdhpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrh
 fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthho
 uggurdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:5ze9Y_CAesSTIYbyX7UjMwMCh6SMluZ52S5NwsePgC5JFBo9PqxprQ>
 <xmx:5ze9Y4hKhPF8AhW81Pd6Dph7RuiGxXP-3ns_0GIMdqpy0twHRCafTg>
 <xmx:5ze9YzqIkNafBwkrrWzRyw7ZvUYZjF2DPEDornA3uNU5-CmZiRP4wg>
 <xmx:5ze9Yxv7RwnO-gtcPMvVu6ABJgkR72mnnP3IVUBlwTI89m8J219g0g>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue,
 10 Jan 2023 05:03:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id C9A715F823; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 05:03:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 05:03:16 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Y7035Edqoq8CK+nl@petertodd.org>
References: <Y7ySzDjzx5eDjOH9@petertodd.org>
 <OwgJwjPrZWRtBaIDDZ8g-xbFPlryUXUopqUuKYVUNE-mVHzCWHFXl77YzDlItEjHTHcGjpzIC5alGsnFEsOtSgHLm9We92gcWrLTahzPGFk=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AMLAtdOZ1UAiPETv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <OwgJwjPrZWRtBaIDDZ8g-xbFPlryUXUopqUuKYVUNE-mVHzCWHFXl77YzDlItEjHTHcGjpzIC5alGsnFEsOtSgHLm9We92gcWrLTahzPGFk=@protonmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Full-RBF Makes DoS Attacks on Multiparty
 Protocols Significantly More Expensive
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, 10 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0000


--AMLAtdOZ1UAiPETv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:19:39AM +0000, alicexbt wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>=20
> > ## How Full-RBF Mitigates the Double-Spend DoS Attack
> >=20
> > Modulo tx-pinning, full-rbf mitigates the double-spend DoS attack in a =
very
> > straightforward way: the low fee transaction is replaced by the higher =
fee
> > transaction, resulting in the latter getting mined in a reasonable amou=
nt of
> > time and the protocol making forward progress.
>=20
> Asking this question based on a [discussion on twitter][0]. How would you=
 get extra sats to increase the fees?

You're misunderstanding the issue. There is no need for extra sats to incre=
ase
fees. Coinjoin transactions already have fees set at a level at which you'd
expect them to be mined in a reasonable amount of time. Full-RBF ensures th=
at,
modulo tx pinning, either the coinjoin gets mined, or any double-spend has =
to
have a high enough feerate that it will be mined in a reasonable amount of =
time
as well.

> It seems this would be possible with Joinmarket, Wasabi and even joinstr =
although things would get worse for Whirlpool. Whirlpool coinjoin transacti=
ons do not signal BIP 125 RBF so they were not replaceable earlier

Bringing up Whirlpool here is silly. Everyone knows Samourai has made, at b=
est,
some rather insane technical decisions. Quite likely downright malicious wi=
th
their xpub collection. Their opinion isn't relevant. Cite reputable sources.

Anyway, Wasabi would like to move to making coinjoins opt-in to RBF. Though
full-rbf may come sooner; for technical reasons opt-in RBF is ugly to imple=
ment
now as activation needs to be coordinated accross all clients:

https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/issues/9041#issuecomment-1376653020

> however attacker would be able to perform DoS attacks now by double spend=
ing their inputs used in coinjoin.

As I explained, attackers can already do this with or without full-rbf simp=
ly
by picking the right time to broadcast the double spend. It's not an effect=
ive
attack anyway: with a UTXO you can already hold up a coinjoin round by simp=
ly
failing to complete stage #2 of the coinjoin. Actually doing a double-spend
simply guarantees that you're spending money on it. It's only effective with
low-fee double-spends in the absence of full-rbf.

> [0]: https://twitter.com/dammkewl/status/1599692908860706818

This tweet is nuts. Eg "Gives well connected mining pools an added advantag=
e"
is simply false. Full-RBF does the exact opposite.

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

--AMLAtdOZ1UAiPETv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=bngQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AMLAtdOZ1UAiPETv--