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
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
|
Return-Path: <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61D4C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:05:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C728143F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:05:10 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 90C728143F
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=HLUEuyJW
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id YUrQqz3RI2JU
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:05:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 57E3A81443
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.133])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57E3A81443
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:05:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 15:04:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1667401506; x=1667660706;
bh=3DAnxQIhdxQDXDNFUlYAykUa5606zATrhokL6hIT92I=;
h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=HLUEuyJWpxuXgAx4YWjaNBHThUNKgM/MGZYVLCSUFWIdu02zt/He5vwnU8sXdfZZ9
Me6cf0YfeN8CDZJ8eZRGJMuPasBoxWG9XJjvbAFQdWlDieMJ7Lyg/0hCQrSHXP771p
hHiqzKh70wBdYGx7EacBo7qVAYGALYAj1Nqaf3iMeAXN7fwnzmoRz+/xTJbUOa22o/
4Fat2whF3TmzunFiAv9f4xpmJCjSs3O3hI5NsX6yhK2rDUt4JGH4MzZY5XEbADHf+x
My8eN0i9epRZsFSDHCrPpK0j1qDhJVlT4g0PC6DXJNmnFlGsJYZ2WT35uLUhPBqxQh
xSdHYPoaQQjLg==
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6FZEWGizm0HEqfu-CMgoj9maAHBgk1XUkniYjI81S3le2sMi8jFOMLXT3ANgmIGufJscI0--aJfXOcEFJq-9UHnixgcYlzO-kAx73ggqEI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y1HG0TyuppR0uC+X@petertodd.org>
References: <Y0ZTtlRSBihNN9+v@erisian.com.au>
<0hpdGx-1WbZdG31xaMXGHKTCjJ2-0eB5aIXUdsp3bqI1MlCx6TMZWROwpl1TVI5irrBqRN2-ydM6hmf3M5L-7ZQfazbx66oameiWTHayr6w=@wuille.net>
<Y0d/e2sEoNRgD7KP@erisian.com.au> <Y0u8Ee2Ao375z8UD@erisian.com.au>
<CALZpt+GSYBFxajSyZS19sQi4_6zHjkA5sP00V-pR=_NEVVUnkg@mail.gmail.com>
<Y05PHYtrNmA0vg7U@erisian.com.au>
<PC-7ALULc67cy0mTKzk_uj-pbCcwDoMuJQmmevzLPexK32B11vuzCusGSrx1wNCQ5YtMqfQeI1N5AmdemvfHEJNJ5VmZxAeaWS6E3tNZxIs=@protonmail.com>
<Y1HG0TyuppR0uC+X@petertodd.org>
Feedback-ID: 11565511:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 15:23:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in immediate
danger
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: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 15:05:10 -0000
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, October 20th, 2022 at 23:08, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>=20
> > > And the
> > > impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like
> > > devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to
> > > them (eg "[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolute=
ly
> > > cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so").
> >=20
> > Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main c=
oinjoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF makin=
g any remarks.
>=20
>=20
> FYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last nig=
ht.
> He gave me permission to republish our conversation:
>=20
> > Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi?
>=20
>=20
> Doesn't really affect us, afaik
> The cj doesn't signal rbf right now
> And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed a=
fter successful signing
> But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get "exploited"
> So probably doesn't matter
> Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be alri=
ght
> We don't yet "use" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / wi=
ll eventually
>=20
> I haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation sh=
ould
> be very similar.
>=20
Hi Peter,
Re: Joinmarket
Yes, it's largely as you would expect. First, we did not ever signal opt-in=
RBF in coinjoins (it'd be nice if we had CPFP as a user-level tool in the =
wallet, to speed up low fee coinjoins, but nobody's done it).
Second, yes we have DOS vectors of the trivial kind based on non-protocol-c=
ompletion (signatures) and RBF would be another one, I don't think it chang=
es our security model at all really (coinjoins being atomic, intrinsically)=
. Nothing in the logic of the protocol relies on unconfirmed txs. Maker *ma=
y* reannounce offers when they see broadcast but it's probabilistic (depend=
s on distribution of funds in (BIP32) accounts), and they do / do not reann=
ounce anyway for various reasons (reconnections on different message channe=
ls, confirmation of a coinjoin). We should probably take a new look at it i=
f this becomes the norm but there shouldn't be any security issue.
Cheers,
AdamISZ/waxwing
|
