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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB91DC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76E7405DF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 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,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, 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
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
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 nNza_I5exEH8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.140])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922FF40266
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:12 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1621343415;
bh=kQl3Dosa1XslK8gCpENYH8hz2W3HDaTgj/MXyFRoXew=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=mfM6n2SzeyT77gYHFMx8S5BHJLt5+J/wPU5d9+Nwyh1x/9Ev9H6i/XASfFzi7cciw
T9PqiLYvOVIQ5jBqJsdglhvrwjVeNosJ3jnGJrpx64v7RIayFr4wYFrRs42Grpi/cK
97uHU5jpfL3VJDvswYI3HdBeZpyKkyDPQTeJmO68=
To: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e_yUTTdaV57Dxzome846NEUsmp2MmrY19-7OWHGyNw0g5IKwkfTR3jN4xLLYNgy_PMya1BkutZLmfZEdsYyARFHM3zp5qZ_eH1DvefS8uw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <M_eKbLz--N-2@tutanota.de>
References: <M_eKbLz--N-2@tutanota.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fee estimates and RBF
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 13:10:20 -0000
Good morning Prayank,
> But it will involve lot of exception handling.
Yes, that is precisely the problem here.
If you select a fixed feerate and then just broadcast-and-forget, you have =
no real exceptions you have to handle --- but that means not using RBF at a=
ll.
Testing the handling of reorgs in particular is important, as a reorg might=
use an older version of an RBFed transaction rather than a newer version.
This also implies that further follow-up transactions might need to be recr=
eated in such a case.
As this is financial code, we need a lot of testing, and code that has a lo=
t of branches due to having to handle a lot of possible exceptions and so f=
orth is a headache to completely cover in testing.
C-lightning supposedly supports RBF, in the sense that every transaction it=
makes always signals RBF, but I am almost certain there are edge cases whe=
re it might mishandle a replaced transaction and lose track of onchain fund=
s, and it is difficult to support both "we can spend unconfirmed change out=
puts" (a very common feature of nearly every onchain wallet) with "we can c=
hange the feerate of unconfirmed transactions" (which changes the txid and =
therefore the UTXO id of the change output spent by use of the previous fea=
ture).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
