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
|
Return-Path: <rhavar@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B3B151B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D1627CB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:21:08 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:21:00 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1540405261;
bh=xBc4Qb1p5Ie8CUFqgrMSLWneKoOFgDWq4nGXsSa5ASM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=Ycj8hGOFrTDdpnbbIWoM7zfB4Ve0Imd9M12cD+TjiO8wYdklS/B4WYXzNQQG9EOnX
vXRNp9MusOPlNGttKbSn4mJKmg2K0/Kl5KOKn9+oz9hyqnjOG5rc4BCTMywm+FKPMI
+E3CnwlAh6GJ1YiM8Ay5l9rwSrCKhZziaJhxUlcA=
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: rhavar@protonmail.com
Reply-To: rhavar@protonmail.com
Message-ID: <Go9kJfeEX3i-XIzmj5a59kLbyAsnQDHpeDGnLrmHuL1m9XjfOMH_Cz5zs1Q48wloikgR2ww75qqhlWRopmm8aXIZADTaRBxZThpIHl3Cteo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <tQ_qHfmyWnGXpNVKNhuMEcHB7h1y9dJolTi0dGHi_vhRcV9bRJJXUPbvVc5QAptwruQ8cK1kxBYryhg4AzLX52uZ1Y7pgVONOVBxG25-8fU=@protonmail.com>
References: <sKbqoBddMV_gqKR8AIje8pbaF9FMc0gy636OOtI5jqszGH6lRrLtDtd_bQBB_d01vexaI17N4k_Zss8aeDOOsE51VDeQ7RGC2cxv1nnc--0=@protonmail.com>
<CAF90Avnbxd3HA0yPcr929sf0o7ihF3SgcnCfqbvAeA8uxZa4Og@mail.gmail.com>
<oTVax1iu2AHkNx8jQ9QlnWr2FS6Uusm1zKPZOkn1XRBv5my23NvVab0lWWH3DSbt3pXEv-ZsmhhU79MGuwnUdP2EKMk931XRyvuLxPRMyjk=@protonmail.com>
<62ab0a37-2969-d9fe-5849-9362154560d0@riseup.net>
<CAAS2fgRY7Ra-pDNp-k4td9qUHtzh5Ah7t8ZWLnz35H_aAfGvGw@mail.gmail.com>
<tQ_qHfmyWnGXpNVKNhuMEcHB7h1y9dJolTi0dGHi_vhRcV9bRJJXUPbvVc5QAptwruQ8cK1kxBYryhg4AzLX52uZ1Y7pgVONOVBxG25-8fU=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: RdfuD--Ffc-FNb_4UIG1XA3s5stj1f6Yt84KENdha_3WoiW3STYpu7X5uGR72LvTfQZpxEhSRHGSlNfV5XM5RA==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:19:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Input/Output Sorting
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:21:09 -0000
Actually, I think it can be calculated a bit smarter using maths (which unf=
ortunately I'm not very good at...). But I assume it's something like:
```
falsePositiveChances :=3D 0.0
foreach( transaction of transactions) {
=09falsePositiveChances +=3D (1 / factorial(transaction.Inputs)) * (1 / fac=
torial(transaction.Ouputs))
}
totalFalsePositives :=3D falsePositiveChances / transactions.length
```
If so, I get 42.4% false positive rate. So clearly bip69 is getting used a =
fair bit, but not nearly as much as randomization.
-Ryan
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:52 AM, <rhavar@protonmail.com> wrote:
> That's pretty easy to quantify. I wrote a quick script to grab the last f=
ew blocks, and then shuffle the inputs/outputs before testing if each trans=
action is bip69 or not.
>
> The result was 42% of all transactions would accidentally be bip69 when r=
andomized.
>
> So clearly randomization is a lot more popular than bip69 at the moment, =
but I'm not sure that it matters much. As soon as you have more than a few =
inputs/outputs, you can tell with a high confidence if the transaction is b=
ip69 or not.
>
> And of course if you're clustering a wallet, you can figure out extremely=
easily how that wallet behaves wrt bip6.
>
> -Ryan
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic.
> > > According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60%=
of
> > > transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance).
> >
> > A two input randomly ordered transaction has a 50% chance of
> > 'following' bip-69. So 60% sound like a small minority.
|
