path: root/50/4c81bd58970a6e53e17ddc54f14c2115a1bfc3

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 89FD6FA2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri,  9 Mar 2018 18:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail1.protonmail.ch (mail1.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.18])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 651195E1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri,  9 Mar 2018 18:40:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:40:34 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
	s=default; t=1520620836;
	bh=i8VBm0yHTckSMh7Vk+iohSAxFvhXDDG4oXA80EaybHk=;
	h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
	Feedback-ID:From;
	b=HQbdRVfrJZE8qKptlSUI+1sd3s9EEzU4/cQh3umkqFihvy7d3mYKSpdNrzk3VVHX5
	J0zB+6muiOqttACD8MGHlsvy23D5LfBSeC0mOsgVlXRkb2H9x6sTVuzJS4KXwwA1XM
	oVBBqqAkEncXISn6llcdCUYasqUdSaucCEXKclQo=
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: rhavar@protonmail.com
Reply-To: rhavar@protonmail.com
Message-ID: <ZmiZUf6iUcddY1CKMADBa8FryCgrZ1235R4bHParR8NpwibjA-EY38D_GElA9jv4Z-zPZE9juQKgJjpd4MFfjg9ySFvO51dOHNoObHdaLjo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180309182803.GE2786@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <CAMZUoKnGx3p7=Kg96E3EEyJ8aFC7ezsvec_pAnN7oJz7-VbyLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180212225828.GB8551@fedora-23-dvm>
	<CAMZUoKnFBVFhaq61wKu_CcZgRKc5aoeTa-wq9h2CXH0WWHd3NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180212234225.GA9131@fedora-23-dvm>
	<CAMZUoK=Htds5fu5vnqAhEoZDrwHALKe6uwqXnmJb17pa_peFFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180301151129.GA9373@fedora-23-dvm>
	<CAMZUoKkG8tbdb+6tGmpvgXb-=3Tu4JsTWXz77o3EC+4Bcbd17A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180308183426.GA1093@fedora-23-dvm>
	<CAMZUoKkDnJv33H-DveHtwpnyALS5LoX-OAnabJyvPo4c1DBJRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180309182803.GE2786@fedora-23-dvm>
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:03:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting BIP 125 RBF policy.
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 18:40:40 -0000

> Still, re-reading your initital post, I'm convinced that the weakening of=
 the
> DoS protections is probably not a huge problem, so maybe lets try this in=
 a
> release and see what happens.

Awesome! I very much agree. The relaxation of some of these DoS prevention =
rules I think will really open up a lot of use cases and adoption=20

> Notably, if people actually use this new replacement behavior, the instit=
utions
> doing these sweeps of unconfirmed outputs might stop doing that!=20

Agree, I'm pretty sure it's unintentional. I know a lot of services struggl=
e with coin selection, so what they do is conceptually have a receive walle=
t from which they can sweep to their hot wallet (or cold storage) to keep t=
heir utxo manageable.

Currently some of them are sweeping unconfirmed inputs with it, but I don't=
 think it's a conscious design choice, just something that happens to be wo=
rking well now.

(FWIW I observed this behavior like 6+ months ago, I haven't kept track of =
if it's still happening or how often. But at the time I had to write off th=
e idea of low-fee rbf batch transactions as it was happening too often to b=
e feasible)


=E2=80=8B-Ryan=E2=80=8B

=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 March 9, 2018 1:28 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:
>=20
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Peter Todd pete@petertodd.org wrote:
> >=20
> > > But that's not a good argument: whether or not normal users are tryin=
g to
> > >=20
> > > attack each other has nothing to do with whether or not you're openin=
g up
> > >=20
> > > an
> > >=20
> > > attack by relaxing anti-DoS protections.
> >=20
> > I'm not suggesting removing the anti-DoS protections. I'm suggesting th=
at
> >=20
> > replaced transaction require a fee increase of at least the min-fee-rat=
e
> >=20
> > times the size of all the transactions being ejected (in addition to th=
e
> >=20
> > other proposed requirements).
>=20
> Fair: you're not removing them entirely, but you are weakening them compa=
red to
>=20
> the status quo.
>=20
> > > Equally, how often are normal users who aren't attacking each other
> > >=20
> > > creating
> > >=20
> > > issues anyway? You can always have your wallet code just skip use of =
RBF
> >=20
> > replacements in the event that someone does spend an unconfirmed output=
 that
> >=20
> > > you sent them; how often does this actually happen in practice?
> >=20
> > Just ask rhavar. It happens regularly.
> >=20
> > Not many wallets let you spend unconfirmed outputs that you didn't crea=
te.
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > The problem is with institutional wallets sweeping incoming payments. I=
t
> >=20
> > seems that in practice they are happy to sweep unconfirmed outputs.
>=20
> Pity, that does sound like a problem. :(
>=20
> > Setting all of the above aside for a moment. We need to understand that
> >=20
> > rational miners are going to prefer to transactions with higher package=
 fee
> >=20
> > rates regardless of whatever your personal preferred RBF policy is. If =
we
> >=20
> > do not bring the RBF policy to alignment with what is economically
> >=20
> > rational, then miners are going to change their own policies anyways,
> >=20
> > probably all in slightly different ways. It behooves everyone to develo=
p a
> >=20
> > reasonable standard RBF policy, that is still robust against possible D=
oS
> >=20
> > vectors, and aligns with miner incentives, so that all participants kno=
w
> >=20
> > what behaviour they can reasonably expect. It is simply a bonus that th=
is
> >=20
> > change in RBF policy also partially mitigates the problem of pinned
> >=20
> > transactions.
>=20
> Miners and full nodes have slightly different priorities here; it's not c=
lear
>=20
> to me why it matters that they implement slightly different policies.
>=20
> Still, re-reading your initital post, I'm convinced that the weakening of=
 the
>=20
> DoS protections is probably not a huge problem, so maybe lets try this in=
 a
>=20
> release and see what happens.
>=20
> Notably, if people actually use this new replacement behavior, the instit=
utions
>=20
> doing these sweeps of unconfirmed outputs might stop doing that! That's
>=20
> probably a good thing, as respends of potentially conflicted unconfirmed
>=20
> outputs can be dangerous in reorgs; we're better off if outputs are burie=
d
>=20
> deeply before being spent again.
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>=20
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'\[:-1\]@petertodd.org
>=20
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=20
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev