From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41BF210E8 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:28:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148099.authsmtp.net (outmail148099.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556845E1 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247]) by punt21.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w29IS8jQ041874; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:28:08 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w29IS6et083863 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:28:07 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DFB540090; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C04C620065; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:28:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:28:03 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: "Russell O'Connor" Message-ID: <20180309182803.GE2786@fedora-23-dvm> References: <20180212225828.GB8551@fedora-23-dvm> <20180212234225.GA9131@fedora-23-dvm> <20180301151129.GA9373@fedora-23-dvm> <20180308183426.GA1093@fedora-23-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6e7ZaeXHKrTJCxdu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 9d84768a-23c7-11e8-8106-0015176ca198 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdgsUFVQGAgsB Am4bWlxeUlV7WWs7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUwdheH8H U1oeWhp6cQYIeX5y Z0IsVyRTWEN8fRdg QE0HEnAHZDJodWge UEZFdwNVdQJNeEwU a1l3GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYB5Y XAAWLE4TR0lDNB8E D0lYQH0VN2NNXyI3 Lhc3bDYv X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 18:28:12 -0000 --6e7ZaeXHKrTJCxdu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > But that's not a good argument: whether or not normal users are trying = to > > attack each other has nothing to do with whether or not you're opening = up > > an > > attack by relaxing anti-DoS protections. > > >=20 > I'm not suggesting removing the anti-DoS protections. I'm suggesting that > replaced transaction require a fee increase of at least the min-fee-rate > times the size of all the transactions being ejected (in addition to the > other proposed requirements). Fair: you're not removing them entirely, but you are weakening them compare= d to the status quo. > > Equally, how often are normal users who aren't attacking each other > > creating > > issues anyway? You can always have your wallet code just skip use of RBF > > > replacements in the event that someone does spend an unconfirmed output t= hat > > you sent them; how often does this actually happen in practice? >=20 >=20 > Just ask rhavar. It happens regularly. >=20 > Not many wallets let you spend unconfirmed outputs that you didn't create. > > >=20 > The problem is with institutional wallets sweeping incoming payments. It > seems that in practice they are happy to sweep unconfirmed outputs. Pity, that does sound like a problem. :( > Setting all of the above aside for a moment. We need to understand that > rational miners are going to prefer to transactions with higher package f= ee > rates regardless of whatever your personal preferred RBF policy is. If we > do not bring the RBF policy to alignment with what is economically > rational, then miners are going to change their own policies anyways, > probably all in slightly different ways. It behooves everyone to develop= a > reasonable standard RBF policy, that is still robust against possible DoS > vectors, and aligns with miner incentives, so that all participants know > what behaviour they can reasonably expect. It is simply a bonus that this > change in RBF policy also partially mitigates the problem of pinned > transactions. Miners and full nodes have slightly different priorities here; it's not cle= ar to me why it matters that they implement slightly different policies. Still, re-reading your initital post, I'm convinced that the weakening of t= he DoS protections is probably not a huge problem, so maybe lets try this in a release and see what happens. Notably, if people actually use this new replacement behavior, the institut= ions doing these sweeps of unconfirmed outputs might stop doing that! That's probably a good thing, as respends of potentially conflicted unconfirmed outputs can be dangerous in reorgs; we're better off if outputs are buried deeply before being spent again. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --6e7ZaeXHKrTJCxdu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGSBAEBCAB8FiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAlqi0jBeFIAAAAAAFQBA YmxvY2toYXNoQGJpdGNvaW4ub3JnMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMzFmOTYxY2Ri YjQ3MjliNjcxMGVmOTg5MWY4M2QxMDljODA0ODg5NTllMDFjYwAKCRAkgUA9pfCR +4brB/kBjoZmGhMZ1Gj7NcvHRRhxYVMyO0Uze8DzzRqj+Nn/e3HI/Zdy0p6/bndq oByRKyUWywrlYi3RcfRdfkt0zDbrF62yfr6MTS4C1v4/8nCNG87lP3nuL/wJvYSX pBH/3ecWQfx8Vi8IoHXKwTOuONfmp22NSL3NzNhrT+3hqFQqQfZvmcNUcKV9US4H YfCjyyiWro8vMtv4jTWfeGhgp7Gl3h6R/MHdbQAgMBL6zGf9M81J9W43B2qrJsvp wwWeHdjM9tO4D//ed2H4axKyIGU+sqqiIK02mw5hRo7D91eQJiZQiy+3C3IMvlw4 5TGR8mP6c7ir4MynrON4ak9RJoyl =A9/W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6e7ZaeXHKrTJCxdu--