From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2A9C0033 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1BB40871 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-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 M3OvqIhZ7oE8 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.135]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD8A4049F for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:37 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1645323881; bh=Bw0I8iJOUDQpaAW6dIzyQHGEu2pExEXw17tWrpPG2TM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=e9phC6L2P3J6gyiSSwYlPuXMqQHtyTdrKrGSenCds8uMx0boIqmfent419h9ifqI/ 5qlwYhqK1evkeP7ZBSaEwE3qbKjizB2MtY57vTn/t/NAKqvPhcsn3KivOzxb8Ad+GH XFA/yRXuRzlO62GjM5RsPLGUqhWB/SqQcXU53rGtwOGw52M8Nv1rUEDAOyRnMlQh5e AGrGSFDVdh1F1Ni/EyH4OAHRLwBB3n6G+uRtp8lteXTqzaFzGfzrDAFn9WXZlkIRk7 wKPKYlKA/Xx+gKttSGbxGIlwLj2Iz7YhvXUvpb+VKb/74sczOck/J03dBA0bI8Smv+ HCePyla6CPOfQ== To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> Message-ID: <Id0jz_ihSCY4KpH4iCljOInrvHVpKIbxsrmROOdqY3mwCFDqSvGVkmFnYgFKzIhOTaqj3SI2Hc4WIZEusT_aJNURHR6nAMPtgwwA9ia2Ahw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <YhFUiA9/YlY99Bok@petertodd.org> References: <CAD5xwhik6jVQpP2_ss7d5o+pPLsqDCHuaXG41AMKHVYhZMXF1w@mail.gmail.com> <YgS3sJvg6kG3WnVJ@petertodd.org> <CAD5xwhi3Ja8gdU2h_6-1ck4kdU0TiC2Kx5O-61=f9=6JQSMs=A@mail.gmail.com> <YhAwr7+9mGJAe2/p@petertodd.org> <CAD5xwhi=sKckFZew75tZTogoeFABraWtJ6qMC+RgZjcirxYyZw@mail.gmail.com> <YhC6yjoe3bAfBS+W@petertodd.org> <kJWi5A4sc0UEU4JrtSg3gbR_M1UTp15XW3Oj5B5cQZQvygFn9pIqrxVxCU0sFjG5L05fqDFH6nz2PnU0sE_zVNMGsCXzmtJeDAc1kEYmYKA=@protonmail.com> <YhFUiA9/YlY99Bok@petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>, lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts 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: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 02:24:47 -0000 Good morning Peter and Jeremy, > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +0000, darosior wrote: > > > > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by gett= ing an > > > out-of-date version of a tx mined. > > > > It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date transact= ion, if > > you signed and broadcasted it in the first place. You can't rely on the= fact that > > a replacement transaction would somehow invalidate a previous version o= f it. > > Anyone on the internet can send you a packet; a secure system must be abl= e to > receive any packet without being compromised. Yet we still call packet fl= oods > as DoS attacks. And internet standards are careful to avoid making packet > flooding cheaper than it currently is. > > The same principal applies here: in many situations transactions do becom= e > out of date, in the sense that you would rather a different transaction b= e > mined instead, and the out-of-date tx being mined is expensive and annoyi= ng. > While you have to account for the possibility of any transaction you have > signed being mined, Bitcoin standards should avoid making unwanted necrom= ancy a > cheap and easy attack. > This seems to me to restrict the only multiparty feebumping method to be so= me form of per-participant anchor outputs a la Lightning anchor commitments= . Note that multiparty RBF is unreliable. While the initial multiparty signing of a transaction may succeed, at a lat= er time with the transaction unconfirmed, one or more of the participants m= ay regret cooperating in the initial signing and decide not to cooperate wi= th the RBF. Or for that matter, a participant may, through complete accident, go offlin= e. Anchor outputs can be keyed to only a specific participant, so feebumping o= f particular transaction can only be done by participants who have been aut= horized to feebump. Perhaps fee accounts can include some kind of proof-this-transaction-author= izes-this-fee-account? Regards, ZmnSCPxj