From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC77C0175; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ACB88688; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qr3VY47c8PJr; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA46876A0; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2620:6e:a007:233::100] (unknown [IPv6:2620:6e:a007:233::100]) by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE1112346FB; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:47 +0000 (UTC) To: ZmnSCPxj References: <67334082-5ABA-45C7-9C09-FF19B119C80D@mattcorallo.com> <62P_3wvv8z7AVCdKPfh-bs30-LliHkx9GI9Og3wqIK6hadIG0d6MJJm077zac1erpPUy31FqgZjkAjEl9AQtrOCg4XA5cxozBb7-OIbbgvE=@protonmail.com> From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <4c4f3a06-0078-ef6a-7b06-7484f0f9edf1@mattcorallo.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:47:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <62P_3wvv8z7AVCdKPfh-bs30-LliHkx9GI9Og3wqIK6hadIG0d6MJJm077zac1erpPUy31FqgZjkAjEl9AQtrOCg4XA5cxozBb7-OIbbgvE=@protonmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , lightning-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] RBF Pinning with Counterparties and Competing Interest X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:47:51 -0000 On 4/23/20 8:46 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote: >>> - Miners, being economically rational, accept this proposal and include this in a block. >>> >>> The proposal by Matt is then: >>> >>> - The hashlock branch should instead be: >>> - B and C must agree, and show the preimage of some hash H (hashlock branch). >>> - Then B and C agree that B provides a signature spending the hashlock branch, to a transaction with the outputs: >>> - Normal payment to C. >>> - Hook output to B, which B can use to CPFP this transaction. >>> - Hook output to C, which C can use to CPFP this transaction. >>> - B can still (somehow) not maintain a mempool, by: >>> - B broadcasts its timelock transaction. >>> - B tries to CPFP the above hashlock transaction. >>> - If CPFP succeeds, it means the above hashlock transaction exists and B queries the peer for this transaction, extracting the preimage and claiming the A->B HTLC. >> >> Note that no query is required. The problem has been solved and the preimage-containing transaction should now confirm just fine. > > Ah, right, so it gets confirmed and the `blocksonly` B sees it in a block. > > Even if C hooks a tree of low-fee transactions on its hook output or normal payment, miners will still be willing to confirm this and the B hook CPFP transaction without, right? Correct, once it makes it into the mempool we can CPFP it and all the regular sub-package CPFP calculation will pick it and its descendants up. Of course this relies on it not spending any other unconfirmed inputs.