public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Matt Corallo <matt@chaincode.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 23:56:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180521035658.vfo4wx6ifum2s2o5@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1246 bytes --]

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:14:06PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com> writes:
> > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce RBF
> > on the spending tx?
> 
> Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so
> we're actually good here.
> 
> However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a
> large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:
> 
>    will be replaced by a new transaction...:
> 
>    3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum
>       paid by the original transactions.
> 
> I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of
> up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the
> consequences of dropping this heuristic?  Peter?

We've discussed this before: that rule prevents bandwidth usage DoS attacks on
the mempool; it's not a "heuristic". If you drop it, an attacker can repeatedly
broadcast and replace a series of transactions to use up tx relay bandwidth for
significantly lower cost than otherwise.

Though these days with relatively high minimum fees that may not matter.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-21  3:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-08 23:57 [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard? Rusty Russell
2018-05-09  0:24 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-09  3:02   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-10  2:08   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-09 17:56 ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 19:27   ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 20:19     ` Johnson Lau
2018-05-09 20:59       ` Peter Todd
2018-05-09 22:06   ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2018-05-10  2:06   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-10  2:27 ` Luke Dashjr
2018-05-10  3:07   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-15  1:22   ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17  2:44   ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-17 10:28     ` ZmnSCPxj
2018-05-17 17:35       ` Christian Decker
2018-05-17 20:06     ` Jim Posen
2018-05-21  3:44       ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21  3:56         ` Peter Todd [this message]
2018-05-30  2:47           ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-31  2:47             ` Rusty Russell
2018-05-21 14:20         ` Russell O'Connor
2018-05-10  9:33 ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10  9:33   ` Jorge Timón
2018-05-10  9:43   ` Luke Dashjr
2018-05-11  2:44     ` ZmnSCPxj

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180521035658.vfo4wx6ifum2s2o5@petertodd.org \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=matt@chaincode.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox