Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF1AC002D for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963CA4064D for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:42:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 963CA4064D Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=petertodd.org header.i=@petertodd.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=J1MzFUwA; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=BkZQ8cP7 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.802 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 BiYIhmLpYz-Z for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:42:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org C7F05401F2 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7F05401F2 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39763200901; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:42:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=petertodd.org; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1655635335; x=1655721735; bh=Aw DxqRgHyQoiWk86GdCgPuhjB09/g5W1RqHkOE8WloA=; b=J1MzFUwADzAgXVGyac AHm7ctZQ5FDEkKGQ3ynWLJtjYh9EHEWClCowxfqRsMV+rHW7FbWnXAY5NF+IFVfW FBkj2FHa/qv4wkrKX6qmiPGRTrJV6+w2NNLsD5HGTY4E4VbE7fUzT3FlKS80lPeg D38x7mci+jJKIPwofB+z2trBN5ULDqdqWkDcNvdUz01spS9ItwA4Io2jOC7rFXQP POX26zyamoPWHoxEDw3qYtcx3Y7xPthCJhBPxRcx/5FBvEUg2wfDQbqz1BILYOKp lMZHVbgwUNB7WQYftTvpfeo8Wo49eVUmapIbyM0yjLRcCXuTRHDWpD2UwBjJkOU/ LGKg== 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= fm2; t=1655635335; x=1655721735; bh=AwDxqRgHyQoiWk86GdCgPuhjB09/ g5W1RqHkOE8WloA=; b=BkZQ8cP79UM680UEI4a3Ji8P5YHYom4KYMJ/rXONyQYW 16VJVySBg9MLMlyJzEPDwc0t9/kr6M+XT3JUc/UxqyqPhjj/qzl8Bg8rpDYktCf+ 4aoWqvqV78JzU02YoO3YdgSiPOatmi5dQ41AYvY83xZEjlRKoVPLhMPVmpsW/MKo JkIKxnKgKoONSN8odwWDSD+K5P9O2BHYMTBCprM0k+wq11WYu+o3X1WGRLwYSYMM 2Ds2oTVcAMeZw0lMlZbpZImSNzT6QgrVZDnNRLsO/6lDNPAbqSThaFCf8fwp2wwa E54wkIYe5NSvYoTaP97VnEGGlNVxwHqYqOfpgiobAA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedruddvledgfedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeelvdellefftddukeduffejgfefjeeuheeileeftdfgteduteeggeevueethfej tdenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdr ohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A122022B5D; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:42:15 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3xoXbsCseTv8/AsP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s security X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:42:17 -0000 --3xoXbsCseTv8/AsP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:54:11AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > If they'reparties interested in implementing more RBF policy options in= Bitcoin Core, I think they're free to propose suchchanges and invest the e= ngineering effort to do so. If you're interested in advancing the state ofp= olicy options in Bitcoin Core, there are a lot of interestingresourcesavail= able and communities toencourage you in the learning process to contribute = to the codebase [6]. >=20 > Thanks for sharing the link. I would love to see 5 RBF policies available= to use in bitcoin core. I have already tried experimenting with a few on r= egtest and will try to open pull request if there are enough people interes= ted to test it on other chains (testnet3, signet, mainnet) I don't think more RBF policies in Bitcoin Core helps much. RBF policies ar= en't very useful in isolation: unless you're getting your txs to other nodes/min= ers via special peering efforts, the only reason to run an uncommon RBF policy = is to accomodate local software with obsolete expectations about mempool behav= ior. That's why my full-RBF patch advertised a special service bit, and did preferential peering with other nodes advertising that service bit. Bitcoin Core isn't going to do that for every RBF policy. So there's no rea= son we should try to accomodate a bunch of them. I can understand a -fullrbf flag from a political point of view, in the pro= cess of enabling full-RBF all the time. But there's no reason to go beyond that. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --3xoXbsCseTv8/AsP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmKu/YIACgkQJIFAPaXw kfsD3gf8CqrFZPiB/OdI5W91LTK5JO4EQE5cTCSkjSPn9+GxG9UPtDTYdTp4bPMl HCavyNJttbXPbB4Q8R/e40iAyAZgS+h6BfhT1UrGZ7+DZO3sT6t77LeFmSR+vFRE taL8t0Jx37RLGNCOEJFU3KqMmxX9akRUnjgaGy3FuT1pAIsjqHgLtzkCePvAh+UU xsdxV1Cy/HPYk/epgofVwDfk9Ca/NOqseG3oXKIN0C7lsV1Fr70GOQFbmGcgB1Hb fVCcz8P1hn8KXDQuNxTo5w60luQ89ImtT2g6hDQxaAxBc6D/OqiveLIZjzcGuE4P k7x8KOgqlSmc6sIodzpPRyT2d+RZ9A== =oh0N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3xoXbsCseTv8/AsP--