Bastien TEINTURIER [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

📅 Original date posted:2022-09-29
📝 Original message:Hi Gloria, Greg,
> I interpret most of the discussion around limitations as ideas for
> future improvements rather than criticisms of the proposal
As far as I'm concerned, definitely!
My current understanding is that the main change/improvement that would
make sense here is restricting the whole v3 package's size (instead of
just the child) via committing to a specific value in the taproot annex
(also note that it's probably not just the v3 package's size, it should
be the whole unconfirmed package including potential v2 unconfirmed
ancestors).
While I think this would be very valuable and would like to see this
happen, I believe that can be done in a second, separate step since this
would make relay policy stricter (some v3 transactions that previously
propagated wouldn't propagate under this new rule). As long as you are
able to find a path to miners through upgraded peers that use this annex
approach, you should be able to resolve ACP pinning issues?
I'm curious to know how other people feel about that: is it ok to do
later or should we try to implement this for the first release of v3
transactions?
The other change mentioned (making OP_TRUE standard and allowing outputs
that are below dust) can be added later, as those won't be standard until
we start allowing them, so there shouldn't be any backwards-compatibility
issue with postponing this change. But maybe it's still worth having from
the get-go, even though it may take a bit more time? Again, I'm curious to
have other people's opinion here, I'd be happy to get all of those directly
in the first release of v3 transactions, but I don't know how much
implementation will have to go into that.
> For clarification, package RBF is ParentTx*s*(plural), and
ChildTx(singular),
> so it might be a bit more complicated than we're thinking
Right, good catch, this does require new logic to handle this case.
As Gloria points out, this should be doable, and is definitely worth
adding (those CSV 1 on every other output are really hacky, glad to
find a way to get rid of them).
Thanks,
Bastien
Le lun. 26 sept. 2022 à 18:48, Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao at gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hi Greg, Antoine, Bastien,
>
> Thanks very much for the feedback! I interpret most of the discussion
> around limitations as ideas for future improvements rather than criticisms
> of the proposal (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'll try to respond to as
> much as possible.
>
> Also I realize that I didn't contextualize this proposal clearly enough;
> it is very tailored for LN Penalty and definitely doesn't close all pinning
> attacks possible (sorry for confusing anyone). I also agree that some bits
> can be a little ugly or tack-on; I would definitely prefer a comprehensive
> RBF revamp to fix all our problems and enable other fee-bumping strategies
> such as
> sign-ANYONECANPAY-then-bring-your-own-fees-by-adding-inputs-at-broadcast. I
> was hoping to get some ideas with the "RBF Improvements" post in January,
> but it doesn't seem like we're much closer to a workable proposal. I think
> this is a minimally-invasive step that works for Lightning today, a small
> fix similar to CPFP carve out.
>
> > As you likely know from previous discussions the biggest scenario this
> does not fix in my estimation is ANYONECANPAY situations. If the parent
> transaction can be "inflated" by tacking on additional inputs, this means
> the total weight of the parent tx lowers the effective feerate of the
> package.
>
> (For more context to other readers I wrote an explanation for this in
> "SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY Pinning" section of RBF ML post). Yes, this
> unfortunately doesn't fix any of the existing pinning attacks for single
> transaction RBF but also doesn't make them worse. This boils down to adding
> an incentive compatibility rule that ensures you can't replace a
> transaction with something that will confirm slower. Package RBF has an
> ancestor feerate-based rule for this (note it is quite conservative and not
> perfect).
>
> So in the scenario above with the "inflated" parent that was signed ACP,
> the replacement would be rejected because the package ancestor feerate is
> lower than the feerate of what is being replaced. But it is imperfect
> (explained below) and thus I wouldn't recommend it for single transaction
> replacement. So that attack still exists for single transactions, yes.
>
> The strategy of using ACP to bring-your-own-fees has its own challenges
> but hopefully has no current use cases as you say. AFAIK LN Penalty is not
> affected by this since it doesn't use ACP, though obviously I agree we
> should fix it for the future.
>
> So when I said "this is intended for fee-bumping presigned txns in
> contracting protocols," I should have said "this is intended for
> fee-bumping presigned txns specifically using CPFP and anchor outputs."
> Apologies for forgetting to contextualize, I've been sitting on this for
> too long.
>
> > The other scenario it doesn't really fix is where HTLC/commitment-like
> transactions are being resolved in a batch, but due to relative time
> constraints, you may want to accelerate some and not others. Now you must
> pay higher rates to replace all of the transaction bumps. This is a
> "self-pin" and "get good at utxos noob" type problem, but it's something
> that axing rule#3 in favor of a Replace-by-ancestor-feerate system would
> get us.
>
> I understand you to mean "if you don't have enough UTXOs and you're forced
> to batch-bump, you over-pay because you need to bring them all to the
> highest target feerate." Isn't this kind of separate, wallet-related
> problem? Contracting or not, surely every wallet needs to have enough UTXOs
> to not batch transactions that shouldn't be batched... I don't see how a
> replace-by-ancestor-feerate policy would make any difference for this?
>
> Also in general I'd like to reiterate that ancestor feerate is not a
> panacea to all our RBF incentive compatibility concerns. Like individual
> feerate, unless we run the mining algorithm, it cannot tell us exactly how
> quickly this transaction would be mined.
>
> We're estimating the incentive compatibility of the original
> transaction(s) and replacement transaction(s), with the goal of not letting
> a transaction replace something that would have been more incentive
> compatible to mine. As such, we don't want to overestimate how good the
> replacement is, and we don't want to underestimate how good the original
> transactions are. This rule "The minimum between package feerate and
> ancestor feerate of the child is not lower than the individual feerates of
> all directly conflicting transactions and the ancestor feerates of all
> original transactions" is a conservative estimate.
>
> > Would kind of be nice if package RBF would detect a "sibling output
> spend" conflict, and knock it out of the mempool via the other replacement
> rules? Getting rid of the requirement to 1 block csv lock every output
> would be quite nice from a smart contracting composability point of view.
>
> Interesting, so when a transaction hits a mempool tx's descendant limit,
> we consider evicting one of its descendants in favor of this transaction,
> based on the RBF rules.
> Cool idea! After chewing on this for a bit, I think this *also* just boils
> down to the fact that RBF should require replacements to be better mining
> candidates. As in, if we added this policy and it can make us evict the
> sibling and accept a transaction with a bunch of low-feerate ancestor junk,
> it would be a new pinning vector.
>
> > If you're a miner and you receive a non-V3, second descendant of an
> unconfirmed V3 transaction, if the offered fee is in the top mempool
> backlog, I think you would have an interest to accept such a transaction.
>
> > So I'm not sure if those two rules are compatible with miners
> incentives...
>
> The same argument can be made for the 26th descendant of a mempool
> transaction; it's also not entirely incentive-compatible to reject it, but
> that is not the *only* design goal in mempool policy. Of course, the
> difference here is that the 25-descendant limit rule is a sensible DoS
> protection, while this 1-descendant limit rule is more of a "help the
> Bitcoin ecosystem" policy, just like CPFP carve-out, dust limit, etc. I can
> of course understand why not everyone would be in favor of this, but I do
> think it's worth it.
>
> > > 4. A V3 transaction that has an unconfirmed V3 ancestor cannot be
> > > larger than 1000 virtual bytes.
>
> > If I understand correctly the 1000 vb upper bound rational, it would be
> to constraint the pinning counterparty to attach a high fee to a child due
> to the limited size, if they would like this transaction to be stuck in the
> network mempools. By doing so this child has high odds to confirm.
>
> Yeah exactly, the "Rule 3 pin" is done by adding a child that's high-fee
> (so you have to pay that much to evict it). Because they *don't* want this
> tx to confirm, normally, this child would be really large. If they only
> have 1000vB for the child, they can't increase the replacement cost without
> also fee-bumping the transaction to make it confirm faster.
>
> > As of today, I think yes you can already fingerprint LN transactions on
> the spec-defined amount value of the anchor outputs, 330 sats. There is
> always one of them on post-anchor commitment transactions. And sadly I
> would say we'll always have tricky fingerprints leaking from unilateral LN
> closures such as HTLC/PTLC timelocks...
>
> > I agree with you, this isn't worse than today, unilateral closes will
> probably always be identifiable on-chain.
>
> Great to hear that there is no privacy worsening!
>
> Best,
> Gloria
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 5:02 PM Greg Sanders <gsanders87 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bastien,
>>
>> > This may be already covered by the current package RBF logic, in that
>> scenario we are simply replacing [ParentTx, ChildTx1] with
>> [ParentTx, ChildTx2] that pays more fees, right?
>>
>> For clarification, package RBF is ParentTx*s*(plural), and
>> ChildTx(singular), so it might be a bit more complicated than we're
>> thinking, and currently the V3 proposal would first de-duplicate the
>> ParentTx based on what is in the mempool, then look at the "rest" of the
>> transactions as a package, then individually. Not the same, not sure how
>> different. I'll defer to experts.
>>
>> Best,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:48 AM Bastien TEINTURIER via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Gloria for this great post.
>>>
>>> This is very valuable work for L2 contracts, and will greatly improve
>>> their security model.
>>>
>>> > "Only 1 anchor output? What if I need to bump counterparty's
>>> commitment tx in mempool?"
>>> > You won't need to fee-bump a counterparty's commitment tx using CPFP.
>>> > You would just package RBF it by attaching a high-feerate child to
>>> > your commitment tx.
>>>
>>> Note that we can also very easily make that single anchor spendable by
>>> both participants (or even anyone), so if you see your counterparty's
>>> commitment in your mempool, you can bump it without publishing your
>>> own commitment, which is quite desirable (your own commitment tx has
>>> CSV delays on your outputs, whereas your counterparty's commitment tx
>>> doesn't).
>>>
>>> > "Is this a privacy issue, i.e. doesn't it allow fingerprinting LN
>>> transactions based on nVersion?"
>>>
>>> I agree with you, this isn't worse than today, unilateral closes will
>>> probably always be identifiable on-chain.
>>>
>>> > Would kind of be nice if package RBF would detect a "sibling output
>>> spend"
>>> > conflict, and knock it out of the mempool via the other replacement
>>> rules?
>>> > Getting rid of the requirement to 1 block csv lock every output would
>>> be
>>> > quite nice from a smart contracting composability point of view.
>>>
>>> +1, that would be very neat!
>>>
>>> This may be already covered by the current package RBF logic, in that
>>> scenario we are simply replacing [ParentTx, ChildTx1] with
>>> [ParentTx, ChildTx2] that pays more fees, right?
>>>
>>> > 1) I do think that we should seriously consider allowing OP_TRUE to
>>> become
>>> > a standard script type as part of this policy update. If pinning is
>>> solved,
>>> > then there's no reason to require all those extra bytes for "binding"
>>> an
>>> > anchor to a specific wallet/user. We can save quite a few bytes by
>>> having
>>> > the input be empty of witness data.
>>> > 2) If we allow for a single dust-value(0 on up) output which is
>>> immediately
>>> > spent by the package, anchors become even easier to to design. No
>>> value has
>>> > to be "sapped" from contract participants to make an anchor output.
>>> There's
>>> > more complications for this, such as making sure the parent
>>> transaction is
>>> > dropped if the child spend is dropped, but maybe it's worth the
>>> squeeze.
>>>
>>> I also think both of these could be quite useful. This would probably
>>> always
>>> be used in combination with a parent transaction that pays 0 fees, so the
>>> 0-value output would always be spent in the same block.
>>>
>>> But this means we could end up with 0-value outputs in the utxo set, if
>>> for
>>> some reason the parent tx is CPFP-ed via another output than the 0-value
>>> one,
>>> which would be a utxo set bloat issue. But I'd argue that we're probably
>>> already creating utxo set bloat with the 330 sat anchor outputs
>>> (especially
>>> since we use two of them, but only one is usually spent), so it would
>>> probably be *better* than what we're doing today.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bastien
>>>
>>> Le lun. 26 sept. 2022 à 03:22, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi Gloria,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the progress on package RBF, few early questions.
>>>>
>>>> > 2. Any descendant of an unconfirmed V3 transaction must also be V3.
>>>>
>>>> > 3. An unconfirmed V3 transaction cannot have more than 1 descendant.
>>>>
>>>> If you're a miner and you receive a non-V3, second descendant of an
>>>> unconfirmed V3 transaction, if the offered fee is in the top mempool
>>>> backlog, I think you would have an interest to accept such a transaction.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not sure if those two rules are compatible with miners
>>>> incentives...
>>>>
>>>> > 4. A V3 transaction that has an unconfirmed V3 ancestor cannot be
>>>> > larger than 1000 virtual bytes.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly the 1000 vb upper bound rational, it would be
>>>> to constraint the pinning counterparty to attach a high fee to a child due
>>>> to the limited size, if they would like this transaction to be stuck in the
>>>> network mempools. By doing so this child has high odds to confirm.
>>>>
>>>> I still wonder if this compatible with miner incentives in period of
>>>> empty mempools, in the sense that if you've already a V3 transaction of
>>>> size 100Kvb offering 2 sat/vb, it's more interesting than a V3 replacement
>>>> candidate of size 1000 vb offering 10 sat/vb. It could be argued the former
>>>> should be conserved.
>>>>
>>>> (That said, the hard thing with any replacement strategy we might evict
>>>> a parent transaction *now* to which is attached a high-feerate child
>>>> *latter* making for a utxo considered the best ancestor set. Maybe in the
>>>> long-term miners should keep every transaction ever accepted...)
>>>>
>>>> > (Lower bound) the smaller this limit, the fewer UTXOs a child may use
>>>> > to fund this fee-bump. For example, only allowing the V3 child to have
>>>> > 2 inputs would require L2 protocols to manage a wallet with high-value
>>>> > UTXOs and make batched fee-bumping impossible. However, as the
>>>> > fee-bumping child only needs to fund fees (as opposed to payments),
>>>> > just a few UTXOs should suffice.
>>>>
>>>> Reminder for L2 devs, batched fee-bumping of time-sensitive
>>>> confirmations of commitment transactions is unsafe, as the counterparty
>>>> could enter in a "cat-and-mouse" game to replace one of the batch element
>>>> at each block to delay confirmation of the remaining elements in the batch,
>>>> I think.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I wonder if we wouldn't want a higher bound. LN
>>>> wallets are likely to have one big UTXO in their fee-bumping reserve pool,
>>>> as the cost of acquiring UTXO is non-null and in the optimistic case, you
>>>> don't need to do unilateral closure. Let's say you close dozens of channels
>>>> at the same time, a UTXO pool management strategy might be to fan-out the
>>>> first spends UTXOs in N fan-out outputs ready to feed the remaining
>>>> in-flight channels.
>>>>
>>>> > 1. The rule around unconfirmed inputs was
>>>> > originally "A package may include new unconfirmed inputs, but the
>>>> > ancestor feerate of the child must be at least as high as the ancestor
>>>> > feerates of every transaction being replaced."
>>>>
>>>> Note, I think we would like this new RBF rule to also apply to single
>>>> transaction package, e.g second-stage HTLC transactions, where a
>>>> counterparty pins a HTLC-preimage by abusing rule 3. In that case, the
>>>> honest LN node should be able to broadcast a "at least as high ancestor
>>>> feerate" HTLC-timeout transaction. With `option_anchor_outputs" there is no
>>>> unconfirmed ancestor to replace, as the commitment transaction, whatever
>>>> the party it is originating from, should already be confirmed.
>>>>
>>>> > "Is this a privacy issue, i.e. doesn't it allow fingerprinting LN
>>>> transactions based on nVersion?"
>>>>
>>>> As of today, I think yes you can already fingerprint LN transactions on
>>>> the spec-defined amount value of the anchor outputs, 330 sats. There is
>>>> always one of them on post-anchor commitment transactions. And sadly I
>>>> would say we'll always have tricky fingerprints leaking from unilateral LN
>>>> closures such as HTLC/PTLC timelocks...
>>>>
>>>> > "Can a V2 transaction replace a V3 transaction and vice versa?"
>>>>
>>>> IIUC, a V3 package could replace a V2 package, with the benefit of the
>>>> new package RBF rules applied. I think this would be a significant
>>>> advantage for LN, as for the current ~85k of opened channels, the old V2
>>>> states shouldn't be pinning vectors. Currently, commitment transactions
>>>> signal replaceability.
>>>>
>>>> Le ven. 23 sept. 2022 à 11:26, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm writing to propose a very simple set of mempool/transaction relay
>>>>> policies intended to aid L2/contract protocols. I realized that
>>>>> the previously proposed Package Mempool Accept package RBF [1]
>>>>> had a few remaining problems after digging into the RBF logic more [2].
>>>>> This additional set of policies solves them without requiring a huge
>>>>> RBF overhaul.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've written an implementation (and docs) for Bitcoin Core:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038
>>>>>
>>>>> (You may notice that this proposal incorporates feedback on the PR -
>>>>> thanks Suhas Daftuar, Gregory Sanders, Bastien Teinturier, Anthony Towns,
>>>>> and others.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are interested in using package RBF/relay to bump presigned
>>>>> transactions, I think you may be interested in reviewing this proposal.
>>>>> This should solve Rule 3 pinning and perhaps allow us
>>>>> to get rid of CPFP carve-out (yay!). I'm keen to hear if people find
>>>>> the 1-anchor-output, 1000vB child limit too restrictive. Also, if you
>>>>> find a
>>>>> pinning attack or something that makes it unusable for you, I would
>>>>> really really like to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that transactions with nVersion=3 ("V3 transactions") are
>>>>> currently non-standard in Bitcoin Core. That means **anything that was
>>>>> standard before this policy change would still be standard
>>>>> afterwards.** If you don't want your transactions to be subject to
>>>>> these rules, just continue whatever you're doing and don't use
>>>>> nVersion=3. AFAICT this shouldn't break anything, but let me know if
>>>>> this would be disruptive for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> **New Policies:**
>>>>>
>>>>> This includes:
>>>>> - a set of additional policy rules applying to V3 transactions
>>>>> - modifications to package RBF rules
>>>>>
>>>>> **V3 transactions:**
>>>>>
>>>>> Existing standardness rules apply to V3 (e.g. min/max tx weight,
>>>>> standard output types, cleanstack, etc.). The following additional
>>>>> rules apply to V3:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A V3 transaction can be replaced, even if it does not signal BIP125
>>>>> replaceability. (It must also meet the other RBF rules around fees,
>>>>> etc. for replacement to happen).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Any descendant of an unconfirmed V3 transaction must also be V3.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: Combined with Rule 1, this gives us the property of
>>>>> "inherited" replaceability signaling when descendants of unconfirmed
>>>>> transactions are created. Additionally, checking whether a transaction
>>>>> signals replaceability this way does not require mempool traversal,
>>>>> and does not change based on what transactions are mined. It also
>>>>> makes subsequent rules about descendant limits much easier to check.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Note*: The descendant of a *confirmed* V3 transaction does not need
>>>>> to be V3.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. An unconfirmed V3 transaction cannot have more than 1 descendant.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: (Upper bound) the larger the descendant limit, the more
>>>>> transactions may need to be replaced. This is a problematic pinning
>>>>> attack, i.e., a malicious counterparty prevents the transaction from
>>>>> being replaced by adding many descendant transactions that aren't
>>>>> fee-bumping.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Lower bound) at least 1 descendant is required to allow CPFP of the
>>>>> presigned transaction. The contract protocol can create presigned
>>>>> transactions paying 0 fees and 1 output for attaching a CPFP at
>>>>> broadcast time ("anchor output"). Without package RBF, multiple anchor
>>>>> outputs would be required to allow each counterparty to fee-bump any
>>>>> presigned transaction. With package RBF, since the presigned
>>>>> transactions can replace each other, 1 anchor output is sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. A V3 transaction that has an unconfirmed V3 ancestor cannot be
>>>>> larger than 1000 virtual bytes.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: (Upper bound) the larger the descendant size limit, the
>>>>> more vbytes may need to be replaced. With default limits, if the child
>>>>> is e.g. 100,000vB, that might be an additional 100,000sats (at
>>>>> 1sat/vbyte) or more, depending on the feerate.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Lower bound) the smaller this limit, the fewer UTXOs a child may use
>>>>> to fund this fee-bump. For example, only allowing the V3 child to have
>>>>> 2 inputs would require L2 protocols to manage a wallet with high-value
>>>>> UTXOs and make batched fee-bumping impossible. However, as the
>>>>> fee-bumping child only needs to fund fees (as opposed to payments),
>>>>> just a few UTXOs should suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> With a limit of 1000 virtual bytes, depending on the output types, the
>>>>> child can have 6-15 UTXOs, which should be enough to fund a fee-bump
>>>>> without requiring a carefully-managed UTXO pool. With 1000 virtual
>>>>> bytes as the descendant limit, the cost to replace a V3 transaction
>>>>> has much lower variance.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: This makes the rule very easily "tacked on" to existing
>>>>> logic for policy and wallets. A transaction may be up to 100KvB on its
>>>>> own (`MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT`) and 101KvB with descendants
>>>>> (`DEFAULT_DESCENDANT_SIZE_LIMIT_KVB`). If an existing V3 transaction
>>>>> in the mempool is 100KvB, its descendant can only be 1000vB, even if
>>>>> the policy is 10KvB.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Package RBF modifications:**
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The rule around unconfirmed inputs was
>>>>> originally "A package may include new unconfirmed inputs, but the
>>>>> ancestor feerate of the child must be at least as high as the ancestor
>>>>> feerates of every transaction being replaced."
>>>>>
>>>>> The package may still include new unconfirmed inputs. However,
>>>>> the new rule is modified to be "The minimum between package feerate
>>>>> and ancestor feerate of the child is not lower than the individual
>>>>> feerates of all directly conflicting transactions and the ancestor
>>>>> feerates of all original transactions."
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: We are attempting to ensure that the replacement
>>>>> transactions are not less incentive-compatible to mine. However, a
>>>>> package/transaction's ancestor feerate is not perfectly representative
>>>>> of its incentive compatibility; it may overestimate (some subset of
>>>>> the ancestors could be included by itself if it has other high-feerate
>>>>> descendants or are themselves higher feerate than this
>>>>> package/transaction). Instead, we use the minimum between the package
>>>>> feerate and ancestor feerate of the child as a more conservative value
>>>>> than what was proposed originally.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. A new rule is added, requiring that all package transactions with
>>>>> mempool conflicts to be V3. This also means the "sponsoring"
>>>>> child transaction must be V3.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Note*: Combined with the V3 rules, this means the package must be
>>>>> a child-with-parents package. Since package validation is only
>>>>> attempted if the transactions do not pay sufficient fees to be
>>>>> accepted on their own, this effectively means that only V3
>>>>> transactions can pay to replace their ancestors' conflicts, and only
>>>>> V3 transactions' replacements may be paid for by a descendant.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: The fee-related rules are economically rational for
>>>>> ancestor packages, but not necessarily other types of packages.
>>>>> A child-with-parents package is a type of ancestor package. It
>>>>> may be fine to allow any ancestor package, but it's more difficult
>>>>> to account for all of the possibilities. For example, it gets much
>>>>> harder to see that we're applying the descendant limits correctly if
>>>>> the package has a gnarly, many-generation, non-tree shape. I'm also
>>>>> not sure if this policy is 100% incentive-compatible if the sponsor
>>>>> is not a direct descendant of the sponsee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see doc/policy/version3_transactions.md and
>>>>> doc/policy/packages.md in the PR for the full set of rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Intended usage for LN:**
>>>>>
>>>>> Commitment transactions should be V3 and have 1 anchor output. They
>>>>> can be signed with 0 fees (or 1sat/vbyte) once package relay is
>>>>> deployed
>>>>> on a significant portion of the network. If the commitment tx must
>>>>> be broadcast, determine the desired feerate at broadcast time and
>>>>> spend the anchor output in a high feerate transaction. I'm going to
>>>>> call the broadcasted commitment tx "the parent" and the attached
>>>>> fee-bumping tx "the child."
>>>>>
>>>>> - This child must be V3.
>>>>> - This child must be at most 1000vB. Note this restricts the
>>>>> number of inputs you can use to fund the fee bump. Depending
>>>>> on the output types, this is around 6-15.
>>>>> - One child may fund fees for multiple commitment tx ("batched
>>>>> fee-bumping").
>>>>> - To do a second fee-bump to add more fees, replace the
>>>>> *child* with a higher-feerate tx. Do not try to attach a grandchild.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, never try to spend from an unconfirmed V3 transaction. The
>>>>> descendant limits for V3 transactions are very restrictive.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Expected Questions:**
>>>>>
>>>>> "Does this fix Rule 3 Pinning?"
>>>>> Yes. The V3 descendant limit restricts both you and your counterparty.
>>>>> Assuming nodes adopted this policy, you may reasonably assume that you
>>>>> only need to replace the commitment transaction + up to 1000vB.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Only 1 anchor output? What if I need to bump counterparty's
>>>>> commitment tx in mempool?"
>>>>> You won't need to fee-bump a counterparty's commitment tx using CPFP.
>>>>> You would just package RBF it by attaching a high-feerate child to
>>>>> your commitment tx.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Is this a privacy issue, i.e. doesn't it allow fingerprinting LN
>>>>> transactions based on nVersion?"
>>>>> Indeed it may be unrealistic to assume V3 transactions will be in
>>>>> widespread use outside of L2. IIUC, unilateral closes are already
>>>>> obvious LN transactions because of the HTLC inputs. For e.g.
>>>>> cooperative closes and opens, I think it makes sense to continue using
>>>>> V2. So, unless I'm missing something, this shouldn't make it worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> "So a V3 transaction that doesn't signal BIP125 replaceability is
>>>>> replaceable? Is that a backward compatibility issue?"
>>>>> Yes it's replaceable. It's not an issue AFAICT because,
>>>>> under previous policy, the V3 transaction wouldn't have been
>>>>> in the mempool in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Can a V2 transaction replace a V3 transaction and vice versa?"
>>>>> Yes, otherwise someone can use V3 transactions to censor V2
>>>>> transactions spending shared inputs. Note if the
>>>>> original V3 transaction has an unconfirmed V3 parent, this would
>>>>> violate the "inherited V3" rule and would be rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reading! Feedback and review would be much appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-September/019464.html
>>>>> [2]:
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019817.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Gloria
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220929/dba37dc7/attachment-0001.html>

📅 Original date posted:2022-02-07
📝 Original message:Good morning,
> The tricky question is what happens when X arrives on its own and it
> might be that no one ever sends a replacement for B,C,D)
It feels ok to me, but this is definitely arguable.
It covers the fact that B,C,D could have been fake transactions whose
sole purpose was to do a pinning attack: in that case the attacker would
have found a way to ensure these transactions don't confirm anyway (or
pay minimal/negligible fees).
If these transactions were legitimate, I believe that their owners would
remake them at some point (because these transactions reflect a business
relationship that needed to happen, so it should very likely still
happen). It's probably hard to verify because the new corresponding
transactions may have nothing in common with the first, but I think the
simplifications it offers for wallets is worth it (which is just my
opinion and needs more scrutiny/feedback).
> But if your backlog's feerate does drop off, *and* that matters, then
> I don't think you can ignore the impact of the descendent transactions
> that you might not get a replacement for.
That is because you're only taking into account the current backlog, and
not taking into account the fact that new items will be added to it soon
to replace the evicted descendants. But I agree that this is a bet: we
can't predict the future and guarantee these replacements will come.
It is really a trade-off, ignoring descendents provides a much simpler
contract that doesn't vary from one mempool to another, but when your
backlog isn't full enough, you may lose some future profits if
transactions don't come in later.
> I think "Y% higher" rather than just "higher" is only useful for
> rate-limiting, not incentive compatibility. (Though maybe it helps
> stabilise a greedy algorithm in some cases?)
That's true. I claimed these policies only address incentives, but using
a percentage increase addresses rate-limiting a bit as well (I couldn't
resist trying to do at least something for it!). I find it a very easy
mechanism to implement, while choosing an absolute value is hard (it's
always easier to think in relatives than absolutes).
> This is why I think it is important to understand the rationales for
introducing the rules in the first place
I completely agree. As you mentioned, we are still in brainstorming
phase, once (if?) we start to converge on what could be better policies,
we do need to clearly explain each policy's expected goal. That will let
future Bastien writing code in 2030 clearly highlight why the 2022 rules
don't make sense anymore!
Cheers,
Bastien
Le sam. 5 févr. 2022 à 14:22, Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson at protonmail.com>
a écrit :
> Thanks for this Bastien (and Gloria for initially posting about this).
>
> I sympathetically skimmed the eclair PR (
> https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair/pull/2113) dealing with replaceable
> transactions fee bumping.
>
> There will continue to be a (hopefully) friendly tug of war on this
> probably for the rest of Bitcoin's existence. I am sure people like Luke,
> Prayank etc will (rightfully) continue to raise that Lightning and other
> second layer protocols shouldn't demand that policy rules be changed if
> there is a reason (e.g. DoS vector) for those rules on the base network.
> But if there are rules that have no upside, introduce unnecessary
> complexity for no reason and make Lightning implementers like Bastien's
> life miserable attempting to deal with them I really hope we can make
> progress on removing or simplifying them.
>
> This is why I think it is important to understand the rationales for
> introducing the rules in the first place (and why it is safe to remove them
> if indeed it is) and being as rigorous as possible on the rationales for
> introducing additional rules. It sounds like from Gloria's initial post we
> are still at a brainstorming phase (which is fine) but knowing what we know
> today I really hope we can learn from the mistakes of the original BIP 125,
> namely the Core implementation not matching the BIP and the sparse
> rationales for the rules. As Bastien says this is not criticizing the
> original BIP 125 authors, 7 years is a long time especially in Bitcoin
> world and they probably weren't thinking about Bastien sitting down to
> write an eclair PR in late 2021 (and reviewers of that PR) when they wrote
> the BIP in 2015.
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>
>
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, January 31st, 2022 at 3:57 PM, Bastien TEINTURIER via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Gloria,
>
> Many thanks for raising awareness on these issues and constantly pushing
> towards finding a better model. This work will highly improve the
> security of any multi-party contract trying to build on top of bitcoin
> (because most multi-party contracts will need to have timeout conditions
> and participants will need to make some transactions confirm before a
> timeout happens - otherwise they may lose funds).
>
> For starters, let me quickly explain why the current rules are hard to
> work with in the context of lightning (but I believe most L2 protocols
> will have the same issues). Feel free to skip this part if you are
> already convinced.
>
> ## Motivation
>
> The biggest pain point is BIP 125 rule 2.
> If I need to increase the fees of a time-sensitive transaction because
> the feerate has been rising since I broadcast it, I may need to also pay
> high fees just to produce a confirmed utxo that I can use. I'm actually
> paying a high fee twice instead of once (and needlessly using on-chain
> space, our scarcest asset, because we could have avoided that additional
> transaction!).
>
> It also has some annoying "non-determinism".
> Imagine that my transaction has been evicted from my mempool because its
> feerate was too low. I could think "Great, that means I don't have to
> apply BIP 125 restrictions, I can just fund this transaction as if it
> were a new one!". But actually I do, because my transaction could still
> be in miner's mempools and I have no way of knowing it...this means that
> whenever I have broadcast a transaction, I must assume that I will
> always need to abide by whatever replacement rules the network applies.
>
> Fortunately, as far as I understand it, this rule only exists because of
> a previous implementation detail of bitcoin core, so there's simply no
> good reason to keep it.
>
> The second biggest pain point is rule 3. It prevents me from efficiently
> using my capital while it's unconfirmed. Whenever I'm using a big utxo
> to fund a transaction, I will get a big change output, and it would
> really be a waste to be unable to use that change output to fund other
> transactions. In order to be capital-efficient, I will end up creating
> descendant trees for my time-sensitive transactions. But as Gloria
> explained, replacing all my children will cost me an absurdly large
> amount of fees. So what I'm actually planning to do instead is to RBF
> one of the descendants high enough to get the whole tree confirmed.
> But if those descendants' timeouts were far in the future, that's a
> waste, I paid a lot more fees for them than I should have. I'd like to
> just replace my transaction and republish the invalidated children
> independently.
>
> Rule 4 doesn't hurt as much as the two previous ones, I don't have too
> much to say about it.
>
> To be fair to the BIP 125 authors, all of these scenarios were very hard
> to forecast at the time this BIP was created. We needed years to build
> on those rules to get a better understanding of their limitations and if
> the rationale behind them made sense in the long term.
>
> ## Proposals
>
> I believe that now is a good time to re-think those, and I really like
> Gloria's categorization of the design constraints.
>
> I'd like to propose a different way of looking at descendants that makes
> it easier to design the new rules. The way I understand it, limiting the
> impact on descendant transactions is only important for DoS protection,
> not for incentive compatibility. I would argue that after evictions,
> descendant transactions will be submitted again (because they represent
> transactions that people actually want to make), so evicting them does
> not have a negative impact on mining incentives (in a world where blocks
> are full most of the time).
>
> I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts on that. If it makes sense,
> I would propose the following very simple rules:
>
> 1. The transaction's ancestor absolute fees must be X% higher than the
> previous transaction's ancestor fees
> 2. The transaction's ancestor feerate must be Y% higher than the
> previous transaction's ancestor feerate
>
> I believe it's completely ok to require increasing both the fees and
> feerate if we don't take descendants into account, because you control
> your ancestor set - whereas the descendant set may be completely out of
> your control.
>
> This is very easy to use by wallets, because the ancestor set is easy to
> obtain. And an important point is that the ancestor set is the same in
> every mempool, whereas the descendant set is not (your mempool may have
> rejected the last descendants, while other people's mempools may still
> contain them).
>
> Because of that reason, I'd like to avoid having a rule that relies on
> some size of the replaced descendant set: it may be valid in your
> mempool but invalid in someone else's, which makes it exploitable for
> pinning attacks.
>
> I believe these rules are incentive compatible (again, if you accept
> the fact that the descendants will be re-submitted and mined as well,
> so their fees aren't lost).
>
> Can we choose X and Y so that these two rules are also DoS-resistant?
> Unfortunately I'm not sure, so maybe we'll need to add a third rule to
> address that. But before we do, can someone detail what it costs for a
> node to evict a descendant tree? Given that bitcoin core doesn't allow
> chains of more than 25 transactions, the maximum number of transactions
> being replaced will be bounded by 25 * N (where N is the number of
> outputs of the transaction being replaced). If it's just O(n) pruning of
> a graph, maybe that's ok? Or maybe we make X or Y depend on the number
> of outputs of the transaction being replaced (this would need very
> careful thoughts)?
>
> If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
> A couple of comments on the previous messages:
>
> > Currently, if we see a transaction
> > that has the same txid as one in the mempool, we reject it as a
> > duplicate, even if the feerate is much higher. It's unclear to me if
> > we have a very strong reason to change this, but noting it as a
> > limitation of our current replacement policy.
>
> I don't see a strong reason from an L2 protocol's point of view yet, but
> there are many unkown unknowns. But from a miner incentive's point of
> view, we should keep the transaction with the higher feerate, shouldn't
> we? In that case it's also a more efficient use of on-chain space, which
> is a win, right?
>
> > We might have a more-or-less long transition period during which we
> support both...
>
> Yes, this is a long term thing.
> Even if bitcoin core releases a new version with updated RBF rules, as a
> wallet you'll need to keep using the old rules for a long time if you
> want to be safe.
>
> But it's all the more reason to try to ship this as soon as possible,
> this way maybe our grand-children will be able to benefit from it ;)
> (just kidding on the timespan obviously).
>
> Cheers,
> Bastien
>
> Le lun. 31 janv. 2022 à 00:11, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> Hi Gloria,
>>
>> Thanks for this RBF sum up. Few thoughts and more context comments if it
>> can help other readers.
>>
>> > For starters, the absolute fee pinning attack is especially
>> > problematic if we apply the same rules (i.e. Rule #3 and #4) in
>> > Package RBF. Imagine that Alice (honest) and Bob (adversary) share a
>> > LN channel. The mempool is rather full, so their pre-negotiated
>> > commitment transactions' feerates would not be considered high
>> > priority by miners. Bob broadcasts his commitment transaction and
>> > attaches a very large child (100KvB with 100,000sat in fees) to his
>> > anchor output. Alice broadcasts her commitment transaction with a
>> > fee-bumping child (200vB with 50,000sat fees which is a generous
>> > 250sat/vB), but this does not meet the absolute fee requirement. She
>> > would need to add another 50,000sat to replace Bob's commitment
>> > transaction.
>>
>> Solving LN pinning attacks, what we're aiming for is enabling a fair
>> feerate bid between the counterparties, thus either forcing the adversary
>> to overbid or to disengage from the confirmation competition. If the
>> replace-by-feerate rule is adopted, there shouldn't be an incentive for Bob
>> to
>> pick up the first option. Though if he does, that's a winning outcome for
>> Alice, as one of the commitment transactions confirms and her
>> time-sensitive second-stage HTLC can be subsequently confirmed.
>>
>> > It's unclear to me if
>> > we have a very strong reason to change this, but noting it as a
>> > limitation of our current replacement policy. See [#24007][12].
>>
>> Deployment of Taproot opens interesting possibilities in the
>> vaults/payment channels design space, where the tapscripts can commit to
>> different set of timelocks/quorum of keys. Even if the pre-signed states
>> stay symmetric, whoever is the publisher, the feerate cost to spend can
>> fluctuate.
>>
>> > While this isn't completely broken, and the user interface is
>> > secondary to the safety of the mempool policy
>>
>> I think with L2s transaction broadcast backend, the stability and clarity
>> of the RBF user interface is primary. What we could be worried about is a
>> too-much complex interface easing the way for an attacker to trigger your
>> L2 node to issue policy-invalid chain of transactions. Especially, when we
>> consider that an attacker might have leverage on chain of transactions
>> composition ("force broadcast of commitment A then commitment B, knowing
>> they will share a CPFP") or even transactions size ("overload commitment A
>> with HTLCs").
>>
>> > * If the original transaction is in the top {0.75MvB, 1MvB} of the
>> > mempool, apply the current rules (absolute fees must increase and
>> > pay for the replacement transaction's new bandwidth). Otherwise, use a
>> > feerate-only rule.
>>
>> How this new replacement rule would behave if you have a parent in the
>> "replace-by-feerate" half but the child is in the "replace-by-fee" one ?
>>
>> If we allow the replacement of the parent based on the feerate, we might
>> decrease the top block absolute fees.
>>
>> If we block the replacement of the parent based on the feerate because
>> the replacement absolute fees aren't above the replaced package, we still
>> preclude a pinning vector. The child might be low-feerate junk and even
>> attached to a low ancestor-score branch.
>>
>> If I'm correct on this limitation, maybe we could turn off the
>> "replace-by-fee" behavior as soon as the mempool is fulfilled with a few
>> blocks ?
>>
>> > * Rate-limit how many replacements we allow per prevout.
>>
>> Depending on how it is implemented, though I would be concerned it
>> introduces a new pinning vector in the context of shared-utxo. If it's a
>> hardcoded constant, it could be exhausted by an adversary starting at the
>> lowest acceptable feerate then slowly increasing while still not reaching
>> the top of the mempool. Same if it's time-based or block-based, no
>> guarantee the replacement slot is honestly used by your counterparty.
>>
>> Further, an above-the-average replacement frequency might just be the
>> reflection of your confirmation strategy reacting to block schedule or
>> mempools historical data. As long as the feerate penalty is paid, I lean to
>> allow replacement.
>>
>> (One solution could be to associate per-user "tag" to the LN
>> transactions, where each "tag" would have its own replacement slots, but
>> privacy?)
>>
>> > * Rate-limit transaction validation in general, per peer.
>>
>> I think we could improve on the Core's new transaction requester logic.
>> Maybe we could bind the peer announced flow based on the feerate score
>> (modulo validation time) of the previously validated transactions from that
>> peer ? That said, while related to RBF, it sounds to me that enhancing
>> Core's rate-limiting transaction strategy is a whole discussion in itself
>> [0]. Especially ensuring it's tolerant to the specific requirements of LN &
>> consorts.
>>
>> > What should they be? We can do some arithmetic to see what happens if
>> > you start with the biggest/lowest feerate transaction and do a bunch
>> > of replacements. Maybe we end up with values that are high enough to
>> > prevent abuse and make sense for applications/users that do RBF.
>>
>> That's a good question.
>>
>> One observation is that the attacker can always renew the set of DoSy
>> utxos to pursue the attack. So maybe we could pick up constants scaled on
>> the block size ? That way an attacker would have to burn fees, thus
>> deterring them from launching an attack. Even if the attackers are miners,
>> they have to renounce their income to acquire new DoSy utxos. If a low-fee
>> period, we could scale up the constants ?
>>
>>
>> Overall, I think there is the deployment issue to warn of. Moving to a
>> new set of RBF rules implies for a lot of Bitcoin applications to rewrite
>> their RBF logics. We might have a more-or-less long transition period
>> during which we support both...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Antoine
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21224
>>
>> Le jeu. 27 janv. 2022 à 09:10, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This post discusses limitations of current Bitcoin Core RBF policy and
>>> attempts to start a conversation about how we can improve it,
>>> summarizing some ideas that have been discussed. Please reply if you
>>> have any new input on issues to be solved and ideas for improvement!
>>>
>>> Just in case I've screwed up the text wrapping again, another copy can be
>>> found here:
>>> https://gist.github.com/glozow/25d9662c52453bd08b4b4b1d3783b9ff
>>>
>>> ## Background
>>>
>>> Please feel free to skip this section if you are already familiar
>>> with RBF.
>>>
>>> Nodes may receive *conflicting* unconfirmed transactions, aka
>>> "double spends" of the same inputs. Instead of always keeping the
>>> first transaction, since v0.12, Bitcoin Core mempool policy has
>>> included a set of Replace-by-Fee (RBF) criteria that allows the second
>>> transaction to replace the first one and any descendants it may have.
>>>
>>> Bitcoin Core RBF policy was previously documented as BIP 125.
>>> The current RBF policy is documented [here][1]. In summary:
>>>
>>> 1. The directly conflicting transactions all signal replaceability
>>> explicitly.
>>>
>>> 2. The replacement transaction only includes an unconfirmed input if
>>> that input was included in one of the directly conflicting
>>> transactions.
>>>
>>> 3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the
>>> sum paid by the original transactions.
>>>
>>> 4. The additional fees pays for the replacement transaction's
>>> bandwidth at or above the rate set by the node's *incremental relay
>>> feerate*.
>>>
>>> 5. The sum of all directly conflicting transactions' descendant counts
>>> (number of transactions inclusive of itself and its descendants)
>>> does not exceed 100.
>>>
>>> We can split these rules into 3 categories/goals:
>>>
>>> - **Allow Opting Out**: Some applications/businesses are unable to
>>> handle transactions that are replaceable (e.g. merchants that use
>>> zero-confirmation transactions). We (try to) help these businesses by
>>> honoring BIP125 signaling; we won't replace transactions that have not
>>> opted in.
>>>
>>> - **Incentive Compatibility**: Ensure that our RBF policy would not
>>> accept replacement transactions which would decrease fee profits
>>> of a miner. In general, if our mempool policy deviates from what is
>>> economically rational, it's likely that the transactions in our
>>> mempool will not match the ones in miners' mempools, making our
>>> fee estimation, compact block relay, and other mempool-dependent
>>> functions unreliable. Incentive-incompatible policy may also
>>> encourage transaction submission through routes other than the p2p
>>> network, harming censorship-resistance and privacy of Bitcoin payments.
>>>
>>> - **DoS Protection**: Limit two types of DoS attacks on the node's
>>> mempool: (1) the number of times a transaction can be replaced and
>>> (2) the volume of transactions that can be evicted during a
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> Even more abstract: our goal is to make a replacement policy that
>>> results in a useful interface for users and safe policy for
>>> node operators.
>>>
>>> ## Motivation
>>>
>>> There are a number of known problems with the current RBF policy.
>>> Many of these shortcomings exist due to mempool limitations at the
>>> time RBF was implemented or result from new types of Bitcoin usage;
>>> they are not criticisms of the original design.
>>>
>>> ### Pinning Attacks
>>>
>>> The most pressing concern is that attackers may take advantage of
>>> limitations in RBF policy to prevent other users' transactions from
>>> being mined or getting accepted as a replacement.
>>>
>>> #### SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY Pinning
>>>
>>> BIP125#2 can be bypassed by creating intermediary transactions to be
>>> replaced together. Anyone can simply split a 1-input 1-output
>>> transaction off from the replacement transaction, then broadcast the
>>> transaction as is. This can always be done, and quite cheaply. More
>>> details in [this comment][2].
>>>
>>> In general, if a transaction is signed with SIGHASH\_ANYONECANPAY,
>>> anybody can just attach a low feerate parent to this transaction and
>>> lower its ancestor feerate. Even if you require SIGHASH\_ALL which
>>> prevents an attacker from changing any outputs, the input can be a
>>> very low amount (e.g. just above the dust limit) from a low-fee
>>> ancestor and still bring down the ancestor feerate of the transaction.
>>>
>>> TLDR: if your transaction is signed with SIGHASH\_ANYONECANPAY and
>>> signals replaceability, regardless of the feerate you broadcast at, an
>>> attacker can lower its mining priority by adding an ancestor.
>>>
>>> #### Absolute Fee
>>>
>>> The restriction of requiring replacement transactions to increase the
>>> absolute fee of the mempool has been described as "bonkers." If the
>>> original transaction has a very large descendant that pays a large
>>> amount of fees, even if it has a low feerate, the replacement
>>> transaction must now pay those fees in order to meet Rule #3.
>>>
>>> #### Package RBF
>>>
>>> There are a number of reasons why, in order to enable Package RBF, we
>>> cannot use the same criteria.
>>>
>>> For starters, the absolute fee pinning attack is especially
>>> problematic if we apply the same rules (i.e. Rule #3 and #4) in
>>> Package RBF. Imagine that Alice (honest) and Bob (adversary) share a
>>> LN channel. The mempool is rather full, so their pre-negotiated
>>> commitment transactions' feerates would not be considered high
>>> priority by miners. Bob broadcasts his commitment transaction and
>>> attaches a very large child (100KvB with 100,000sat in fees) to his
>>> anchor output. Alice broadcasts her commitment transaction with a
>>> fee-bumping child (200vB with 50,000sat fees which is a generous
>>> 250sat/vB), but this does not meet the absolute fee requirement. She
>>> would need to add another 50,000sat to replace Bob's commitment
>>> transaction.
>>>
>>> Disallowing new unconfirmed inputs (Rule #2) in Package RBF would be
>>> broken for packages containing transactions already in the mempool,
>>> explained [here][7].
>>>
>>> Note: I originally [proposed][6] Package RBF using the same Rule #3
>>> and #4 before I realized how significant this pinning attack is. I'm
>>> retracting that proposal, and a new set of Package RBF rules would
>>> follow from whatever the new individual RBF rules end up being.
>>>
>>> #### Same Txid Different Witness
>>>
>>> Two transactions with the same non-witness data but different
>>> witnesses have the same txid but different wtxid, and the same fee but
>>> not necessarily the same feerate. Currently, if we see a transaction
>>> that has the same txid as one in the mempool, we reject it as a
>>> duplicate, even if the feerate is much higher. It's unclear to me if
>>> we have a very strong reason to change this, but noting it as a
>>> limitation of our current replacement policy. See [#24007][12].
>>>
>>> ### User Interface
>>>
>>> #### Using Unconfirmed UTXOs to Fund Replacements
>>>
>>> The restriction of only allowing confirmed UTXOs for funding a
>>> fee-bump (Rule #2) can hurt users trying to fee-bump their
>>> transactions and complicate wallet implementations. If the original
>>> transaction's output value isn't sufficient to fund a fee-bump and/or
>>> all of the user's other UTXOs are unconfirmed, they might not be able
>>> to fund a replacement transaction. Wallet developers also need to
>>> treat self-owned unconfirmed UTXOs as unusable for fee-bumping, which
>>> adds complexity to wallet logic. For example, see BDK issues [#144][4]
>>> and [#414][5].
>>>
>>> #### Interface Not Suitable for Coin Selection
>>>
>>> Currently, a user cannot simply create a replacement transaction
>>> targeting a specific feerate or meeting a minimum fee amount and
>>> expect to meet the RBF criteria. The fee amount depends on the size of
>>> the replacement transaction, and feerate is almost irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Bitcoin Core's `bumpfee` doesn't use the RBF rules when funding the
>>> replacement. It [estimates][13] a feerate which is "wallet incremental
>>> relay fee" (a conservative overestimation of the node's incremental
>>> relay fee) higher than the original transaction, selects coins for
>>> that feerate, and hopes that it meets the RBF rules. It never fails
>>> Rule #3 and #4 because it uses all original inputs and refuses to
>>> bump a transaction with mempool descendants.
>>>
>>> This is suboptimal, but is designed to work with the coin selection
>>> engine: select a feerate first, and then add fees to cover it.
>>> Following the exact RBF rules would require working the other way
>>> around: based on how much fees we've added to the transaction and its
>>> current size, calculate the feerate to see if we meet Rule #4.
>>>
>>> While this isn't completely broken, and the user interface is
>>> secondary to the safety of the mempool policy, we can do much better.
>>> A much more user-friendly interface would depend *only* on the
>>> fee and size of the original transactions.
>>>
>>> ### Updates to Mempool and Mining
>>>
>>> Since RBF was first implemented, a number of improvements have been
>>> made to mempool and mining logic. For example, we now use ancestor
>>> feerates in mining (allowing CPFP), and keep track of ancestor
>>> packages in the mempool.
>>>
>>> ## Ideas for Improvements
>>>
>>> ### Goals
>>>
>>> To summarize, these seem to be desired changes, in order of priority:
>>>
>>> 1. Remove Rule #3. The replacement should not be *required* to pay
>>> higher absolute fees.
>>>
>>> 2. Make it impossible for a replacement transaction to have a lower
>>> mining score than the original transaction(s). This would eliminate
>>> the `SIGHASH\_ANYONECANPAY` pinning attack.
>>>
>>> 3. Remove Rule #2. Adding new unconfirmed inputs should be allowed.
>>>
>>> 4. Create a more helpful interface that helps wallet fund replacement
>>> transactions that aim for a feerate and fee.
>>>
>>> ### A Different Model for Fees
>>>
>>> For incentive compatibility, I believe there are different
>>> formulations we should consider. Most importantly, if we want to get
>>> rid of the absolute fee rule, we can no longer think of it as "the
>>> transaction needs to pay for its own bandwidth," since we won't always
>>> be getting additional fees. That means we need a new method of
>>> rate-limiting replacements that doesn't require additional fees every
>>> time.
>>>
>>> While it makes sense to think about monetary costs when launching a
>>> specific type of attack, given that the fees are paid to the miner and
>>> not to the mempool operators, maybe it doesn't make much sense to
>>> think about "paying for bandwidth". Maybe we should implement
>>> transaction validation rate-limiting differently, e.g. building it
>>> into the P2P layer instead of the mempool policy layer.
>>>
>>> Recently, Suhas gave a [formulation][8] for incentive compatibility
>>> that made sense to me: "are the fees expected to be paid in the next
>>> (N?) blocks higher or lower if we process this transaction?"
>>>
>>> I started by thinking about this where N=1 or `1 + p`.
>>> Here, a rational miner is looking at what fees they would
>>> collect in the next block, and then some proportion `p` of the rest of
>>> the blocks based on their hashrate. We're assuming `p` isn't *so high*
>>> that they would be okay with lower absolute fees in the next 1 block.
>>> We're also assuming `p` isn't *so low* that the miner doesn't care
>>> about what's left of the mempool after this block.
>>>
>>> A tweak to this formulation is "if we process this transaction, would
>>> the fees in the next 1 block higher or lower, and is the feerate
>>> density of the rest of the mempool higher or lower?" This is pretty
>>> similar, where N=1, but we consider the rest of the mempool by feerate
>>> rather than fees.
>>>
>>> ### Mining Score of a Mempool Transaction
>>>
>>> We are often interested in finding out what
>>> the "mining score" of a transaction in the mempool is. That is, when
>>> the transaction is considered in block template building, what is the
>>> feerate it is considered at?
>>>
>>> Obviously, it's not the transaction's individual feerate. Bitcoin Core
>>> [mining code sorts][14] transactions by their ancestor feerate and
>>> includes them packages at a time, keeping track of how this affects the
>>> package feerates of remaining transactions in the mempool.
>>>
>>> *ancestor feerate*: Ancestor feerate is easily accessible information,
>>> but it's not accurate either, because it doesn't take into account the
>>> fact that subsets of a transaction's ancestor set can be included
>>> without it. For example, ancestors may have high feerates on their own
>>> or we may have [high feerate siblings][8].
>>>
>>> TLDR: *Looking at the current ancestor feerate of a transaction is
>>> insufficient to tell us what feerate it will be considered at when
>>> building a block template in the future.*
>>>
>>> *min(individual feerate, ancestor feerate)*: Another
>>> heuristic that is simple to calculate based on current mempool tooling
>>> is to use the [minimum of a transaction's individual score and its
>>> ancestor score][10] as a conservative measure. But this can
>>> overestimate as well (see the example below).
>>>
>>> *min ancestor feerate(tx + possible ancestor subsets)* We can also
>>> take the minimum of every possible ancestor subset, but this can be
>>> computationally expensive since there can be lots and lots of ancestor
>>> subsets.
>>>
>>> *max ancestor feerate(tx + possible descendant subsets)*: Another idea
>>> is to use the [maximum ancestor score of the transaction + each of its
>>> descendants][9]. This doesn't work either; it has the same blindspot
>>> of ancestor subsets being mined on their own.
>>>
>>> #### Mining Score Example
>>>
>>> Here's an example illustrating why mining score is tricky to
>>> efficiently calculate for mempool transactions:
>>>
>>> Let's say you have same-size transactions A (21sat/vB), B (1sat/vB),
>>> C(9sat/vB), D(5sat/vB).
>>> The layout is: grandparent A, parent B, and two children C and D.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> A
>>> ^
>>> B
>>> ^ ^
>>> C D
>>> ```
>>>
>>> A miner using ancestor packages to build block templates will first
>>> include A with a mining score of 21. Next, the miner will include B and
>>> C with a mining score of 6. This leaves D, with a mining score of 5.
>>>
>>> Note: in this case, mining by ancestor feerate results in the most
>>> rational decisions, but [a candidate set-based approach][10] which
>>> makes ancestor feerate much less relevant could
>>> be more advantageous in other situations.
>>>
>>> Here is a chart showing the "true" mining score alongside the values
>>> calculating using imperfect heuristics described above. All of them
>>> can overestimate or underestimate.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> A B C D
>>> mining score | 21 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
>>> ancestor feerate | 21 | 11 | 10.3 | 9 |
>>> min(individual, ancestor) | 21 | 1 | 9 | 5 |
>>> min(tx + ancestor subsets) | 21 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
>>> max(tx + descendants subsets) | 21 | 9 | 9 | 5 |
>>>
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Possibly the best solution for finding the "mining score" of a
>>> transaction is to build a block template, see what feerate each
>>> package is included at. Perhaps at some cutoff, remaining mempool
>>> transactions can be estimated using some heuristic that leans
>>> {overestimating, underestimating} depending on the situation.
>>>
>>> Mining score seems to be relevant in multiple places: Murch and I
>>> recently [found][3] that it would be very important in
>>> "ancestor-aware" funding of transactions (the wallet doesn't
>>> incorporate ancestor fees when using unconfirmed transactions in coin
>>> selection, which is a bug we want to fix).
>>>
>>> In general, it would be nice to know the exact mining priority of
>>> one's unconfirmed transaction is. I can think of a few block/mempool
>>> explorers who might want to display this information for users.
>>>
>>> ### RBF Improvement Proposals
>>>
>>> After speaking to quite a few people, here are some suggestions
>>> for improvements that I have heard:
>>>
>>> * The ancestor score of the replacement must be {5, 10, N}% higher
>>> than that of every original transaction.
>>>
>>> * The ancestor score of the replacement must be 1sat/vB higher than
>>> that of every original transaction.
>>>
>>> * If the original transaction is in the top {0.75MvB, 1MvB} of the
>>> mempool, apply the current rules (absolute fees must increase and
>>> pay for the replacement transaction's new bandwidth). Otherwise, use a
>>> feerate-only rule.
>>>
>>> * If fees don't increase, the size of the replacement transaction must
>>> decrease by at least N%.
>>>
>>> * Rate-limit how many replacements we allow per prevout.
>>>
>>> * Rate-limit transaction validation in general, per peer.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some others on the mailing list can chime in to throw other
>>> ideas into the ring and/or combine some of these rules into a sensible
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> #### Replace by Feerate Only
>>>
>>> I don't think there's going to be a single-line feerate-based
>>> rule that can incorporate everything we need.
>>> On one hand, a feerate-only approach helps eliminate the issues
>>> associated with Rule #3. On the other hand, I believe the main concern
>>> with a feerate-only approach is how to rate limit replacements. We
>>> don't want to enable an attack such as:
>>>
>>> 1. Attacker broadcasts large, low-feerate transaction, and attaches a
>>> chain of descendants.
>>>
>>> 2. The attacker replaces the transaction with a smaller but higher
>>> feerate transaction, attaching a new chain of descendants.
>>>
>>> 3. Repeat 1000 times.
>>>
>>> #### Fees in Next Block and Feerate for the Rest of the Mempool
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can look at replacements like this:
>>>
>>> 1. Calculate the directly conflicting transactions and, with their
>>> descendants, the original transactions. Check signaling. Limit the
>>> total volume (e.g. can't be more than 100 total or 1MvB or something).
>>>
>>> 2. Find which original transactions would be in the next ~1 block. The
>>> replacement must pay at least this amount + X% in absolute fees. This
>>> guarantees that the fees of the next block doesn't decrease.
>>>
>>> 3. Find which transactions would be left in the mempool after that ~1
>>> block. The replacement's feerate must be Y% higher than the maximum
>>> mining score of these transactions. This guarantees that you now have
>>> only *better* candidates in your after-this-block mempool than you did
>>> before, even if the size and fees the transactions decrease.
>>>
>>> 4. Now you have two numbers: a minimum absolute fee amount and a
>>> minimum feerate. Check to see if the replacement(s) meet these
>>> minimums. Also, a wallet would be able to ask the node "What fee and
>>> feerate would I need to put on a transaction replacing this?" and use
>>> this information to fund a replacement transaction, without needing to
>>> guess or overshoot.
>>>
>>> Obviously, there are some magic numbers missing here. X and Y are
>>> TBD constants to ensure we have some kind of rate limiting for the
>>> number of replacements allowed using some set of fees.
>>>
>>> What should they be? We can do some arithmetic to see what happens if
>>> you start with the biggest/lowest feerate transaction and do a bunch
>>> of replacements. Maybe we end up with values that are high enough to
>>> prevent abuse and make sense for applications/users that do RBF.
>>>
>>> ### Mempool Changes Need for Implementation
>>>
>>> As described in the mining score section above,
>>> we may want additional tooling to more accurately assess
>>> the economic gain of replacing transactions in our mempool.
>>>
>>> A few options have been discussed:
>>>
>>> * Calculate block templates on the fly when we need to consider a
>>> replacement. However, since replacements are [quite common][11]
>>> and the information might be useful for other things as well,
>>> it may be worth it to cache a block template.
>>>
>>> * Keep a persistent block template so that we know what transactions
>>> we would put in the next block. We need to remember the feerate
>>> at which each transaction was included in the template, because an
>>> ancestor package may be included in the same block template in
>>> multiple subsets. Transactions included earlier alter the ancestor
>>> feerate of the remaining transactions in the package. We also need
>>> to keep track of the new feerates of transactions left over.
>>>
>>> * Divide the mempool into two layers, "high feerate" and "low
>>> feerate." The high feerate layer contains ~1 block of packages with
>>> the highest ancestor feerates, and the low feerate layer contains
>>> everything else. At the edge of a block, we have a Knapsacky problem
>>> where the next highest ancestor feerate package might not fit, so we
>>> would probably want the high feerate layer ~2MvB or something to avoid
>>> underestimating the fees.
>>>
>>> ## Acknowledgements
>>>
>>> Thank you to everyone whose RBF-related suggestions, grievances,
>>> criticisms and ideas were incorporated in this document:
>>> Andrew Chow, Matt Corallo, Suhas Daftuar, Christian Decker,
>>> Mark Erhardt, Lloyd Fournier, Lisa Neigut, John Newbery,
>>> Antoine Poinsot, Antoine Riard, Larry Ruane,
>>> S3RK and Bastien Teinturier.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gloria
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md
>>> [2]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23121#issuecomment-929475999
>>> [3]:
>>> https://github.com/Xekyo/bitcoin/commit/d754b0242ec69d42c570418aebf9c1335af0b8ea
>>> [4]: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/144
>>> [5]: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/414
>>> [6]:
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-September/019464.html
>>> [7]:
>>> https://gist.github.com/glozow/dc4e9d5c5b14ade7cdfac40f43adb18a#new-unconfirmed-inputs-rule-2
>>> [8]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23121#discussion_r777131366
>>> [9]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22290#issuecomment-865887922
>>> [10]:
>>> https://gist.github.com/Xekyo/5cb413fe9f26dbce57abfd344ebbfaf2#file-candidate-set-based-block-building-md
>>> [11]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22539#issuecomment-885763670
>>> [12]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24007
>>> [13]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/1a369f006fd0bec373b95001ed84b480e852f191/src/wallet/feebumper.cpp#L114
>>> [14]:
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/cf5bb048e80d4cde8828787b266b7f5f2e3b6d7b/src/node/miner.cpp#L310-L320
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220207/66d76ec4/attachment-0001.html>