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
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD881C0037
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFCA413A3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 8BFCA413A3
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=JfIo6+qT
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 7BsFPB854k8L
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.28])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927E0410BB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 927E0410BB
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3A75C00CF;
Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:56:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Dec 2023 12:56:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date
:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to
:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to
:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
fm2; t=1702835779; x=1702922179; bh=O8OaVPusPGnldu/LglyXXiPEdg/j
EBb0sgx3Hg1JFdc=; b=JfIo6+qT1eeRzsog6l62WUMBJwCBa/qgh9vJRK2F2ojI
7B1jt1Yfe+Cq3n5j27m4jD4s+4ByFRyOCPbfH/8hrns+6mHdlSZIMrX2amF2DIG/
93BNsvoAqdjLmc42IH7dQf25k3n+/6q80rp3yDiaQyzEZb4Y+qXJQt7SEoOJ59Bl
z3ANClzlvwNkwgblZ9lhtO96ULOMB4ZYaY6D6tTvaKF5ZpaeLWyVZer8Mfm1N4nQ
hlfdk+vHIZtuXinO3BrxNlrv++3oaIhYLVvvHdDlUgHRt8CmQfvd8vGKRIJQ6T0Z
AFCVWfVIfk1rVWsUh5QE5amUs1DQojj2oJKLVSWgRA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:QzZ_ZRv5Hnt1W-LKl4m5bQmzJ3bWRaDv5cn7KDYpyV1zrObf1PXw8A>
<xme:QzZ_Zadu2Jbhca6JSZauToGZ-17EH7GoHRJSaHjIs4ZGba4kp_oJ7mgOo4cevLCP-
CxQ6dMtjRtBwKaWokk>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:QzZ_ZUx_5Xi-wCWzUBSOek379ssXeqEYERetm2-srdZVj_CeDTfp50vtuw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvddtiedguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod
ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh
necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtd
erredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhht
ohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepiedvvdelieekjeeukefgtdelfeeghe
ehleffueehteeghfelveejfeelgeevffefnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggu
rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh
epphgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:QzZ_ZYPnCDFgUDfEBjHA6nyhkR9apAZRAS-hb1trApN08oQg7ybe9A>
<xmx:QzZ_ZR8J0iPc5-7f3So_BrVVy3XWRqjUX2sBSCTbxtev5xWeiCTprA>
<xmx:QzZ_ZYVYGsAqKsaVmUC41_m7dBndh-LA5fUsTojMI8cJLL8pN4V06Q>
<xmx:QzZ_ZcZpQWyDe-M0sLVntsarzLkobVa7V1ndfLTo6eohgd6xq4DdRg>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun,
17 Dec 2023 12:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 1B59C5F81D; Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:16 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: ArmchairCryptologist <ArmchairCryptologist@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZX82QKJCLLPMfHXl@petertodd.org>
References: <e5QWFNC21ZBNRZ_k0IJTSjTMm_7tvu8eu9seo84N4X87niVTfsDMv3I5l7YZgZ7zSXqNIlsGk-necWsDXsMd9AG8wnEBappboXMVsqygmiM=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mYjkTX6EQJW8IVXP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e5QWFNC21ZBNRZ_k0IJTSjTMm_7tvu8eu9seo84N4X87niVTfsDMv3I5l7YZgZ7zSXqNIlsGk-necWsDXsMd9AG8wnEBappboXMVsqygmiM=@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Addressing the possibility of profitable fee
manipulation attacks
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: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:56:27 -0000
--mYjkTX6EQJW8IVXP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:11:10AM +0000, ArmchairCryptologist via bitcoin-=
dev wrote:
> ** A possible solution, with some caveats **
>=20
> My proposed solution to this would be to add partial transaction fee burn=
ing. If 50% or more of transaction fees were burned, this should effectivel=
y curtail any incentive miners have for padding blocks with junk transactio=
ns in general, as it would both significantly reduce the amount of spent fe=
es they would be able to recoup, and also reduce the amount of benefit they=
gain from the transaction fees being high. The burn rate would however nec=
essarily have to be less than 100%, otherwise miners would not be incentivi=
zed to include any transactions at all, and might as well be mining empty b=
locks.
Fee-burning solutions are easily bypassed with out-of-band fee payments.
If fee-burning was possible, I would have proposed it already as a way to
ensure there is always an incentive for miners to mine blocks. Unfortunatel=
y,
it does not work.
> Changing fee estimation algorithms across the board to not take historica=
l fee data into account, eliminating the long-term decaying fee effects obs=
erved after short-term flooding of high-fee transactions, would of course s=
ignificantly help prevent such attacks from being profitable in the first p=
lace without requiring any sort of fork. As such, I believe this should als=
o be done as a short-term makeshift solution. A less exploitable estimate c=
ould be made by limiting the algorithms to only use the current mempool sta=
te and influx rate, as well as possibly the estimated current blockrate and=
the arrival times of recent blocks. Additionally, wallets could pre-sign a=
number of replacement transactions spending the same UTXO(s) with graduall=
y increasing fees up to a maximum specified by the user, and automatically =
broadcast them in order as the state of the mempool changed. And I'm sure t=
here are additional strategies that could be used here as well to make the =
ecosystem more fee-optimal in general.
Yes, RBF needs to be used a lot more. CPFP is inefficient and wasteful, and
estimates are quite often wrong.
> Unfortunately, as long as some parties still use historic fee data for th=
eir fee estimation, the attack could still be effective up to a point. Paym=
ent providers like BitPay for example currently specify that you need to us=
e a historically high fee for the initial transaction for it to be accepted=
, and does not recognize replacement transactions that bump the fee.
BitPay is just a garbage payment processor. Possibly intentionally so, with=
the
aim of getting big block policies introduced.
BTW note how if mining pools are intentionally flooding the network to incr=
ease
fees, mining pools such as Ocean that filter out fee-paying transactions th=
at
are part of the (possible) attack actually contribute to this problem by
reducing the cost of the attack.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--mYjkTX6EQJW8IVXP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=UteR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--mYjkTX6EQJW8IVXP--
|
