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
|
Return-Path: <user@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF1AC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <xms:hv2uYtOMiIpkmrwzLCcbbii6sRcbN2SSgb2DsUcigKeSCR_Rc2Dv5A>
<xme:hv2uYv-jI79_r4Jnhdmq9BBGTXLXEr_7FWxLW6SmwqYg8XR-DKfVjdrwN9vMJBfSv
PvHFNVSAOZ7cn5vbbo>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:hv2uYsRF-K8jHlmvwF8vG21la5N2bXP56MGmzSF38AvldNM7sAtc8kHHJdz9nyTGCVP9NIob4Cklc5bgffGbs_tCPon2>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedruddvledgfedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv
rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth
gvrhhnpeelvdellefftddukeduffejgfefjeeuheeileeftdfgteduteeggeevueethfej
tdenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii
gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdr
ohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:hv2uYps494gBP9Du2t2x_N5EvvjXEArB7s5m4egvMvODWOiEpqRFKg>
<xmx:hv2uYlcgRkPEqvgd5GNirJMmY8DAl4PSIJMpZyftwsR3CZj6AmPEGg>
<xmx:hv2uYl2LBGl0-J9UFkom0kHfOX6P9YeI5DYYXehB2UyBx-0tPK9xyg>
<xmx:h_2uYlGcxMJFg8tVLMllGpuQxC-hh5byM96W6Nv61eZQTu4n01k_sw>
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 <pete@petertodd.org>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Yq79h7biyvbu4ifi@petertodd.org>
References: <CALZpt+GOh-7weEypT9JrzcwthZJqHOfj7sf9FMuqi5_FZv0g7w@mail.gmail.com>
<gmDNbfrrvaZL4akV2DFwCuKrls9SScQjqxeRoEorEiYlv24dPt1j583iOtcB2lFrxZc59N3kp7T9KIM4ycl4QOmGBfDOUmO-BVHsttvtvDc=@protonmail.com>
<CALZpt+FJ-R9yCoMLP=Vcxk1U7n=-LKHUGctFZj0K-vTMsz==ew@mail.gmail.com>
<RJEFmrnjbzKQCBr4L7ebwBLzg7QHGXlaE19zj6jfkxL6xjfodgbfssZBQSYxm783Y4X5awuhL9Gj8IaBc4npE2oh3d1xoudKTrSsJ-dk0VQ=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3xoXbsCseTv8/AsP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <RJEFmrnjbzKQCBr4L7ebwBLzg7QHGXlaE19zj6jfkxL6xjfodgbfssZBQSYxm783Y4X5awuhL9Gj8IaBc4npE2oh3d1xoudKTrSsJ-dk0VQ=@protonmail.com>
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 <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, 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--
|
