One could list the operating system on which is running your Lightning process or the compiler toolchain turning out your Lightning source code in a binary artifact. Some weird kernel's memory mapping change could allow access to your channel funding keys, _without_ breaking the Bitcoin consensus rules [0].
Moreover, your Lightning node is also relying on the existence of a global Internet allowing your HTLC transaction to flow from your physical host to the crowd of transactions confirming in the blockchain. Due to this "protocol assumption" your channel balance would be vulnerable to any change in your ISP routing policy, e.g refusing to accept your IPV4 traffic by a sudden desiderata to impose an IPV6 supremacy. Still _without_ breaking the Bitcoin consensus rules. Of course, the odds of your ISP operator adopting this behavior are really low, mostly because your operator has to bind to social and economic constraints to stay in business.
And I believe this imperative to stay in business is certainly not absent in the incentives of the Bitcoin node operators. You're free to run any policy on your node, especially one hardening the safety of your operations beyond the default one. However, if you start to a transaction-relay non-compatible with miner incentives, you won't have an efficient view of the blockspace demand, and from then won't be able to offer compelling feerates to execute your business transactions to satisfy your client needs. Or you won't consolidate your wallet UTXOs at times of low-demand. Indeed, a sane visibility of the mempools might not be critical now for your Bitcoin operations, but this is not likely to become true with miner's coinbase reward lowering with time and the system security relying on a fruitful fee market.
So assuming there is a significant number of economically rational entities running p2p nodes, I think it's a reasonable assumption for Lightning developers that a policy maximizing miner's income and economic nodes operations will be widely run on the p2p network, and therefore lay its security model on that. When there is a gap between the economically optimal policy (full-rbf) and the effectively deployed one (optin), and this gap constitutes a flaw for exploitation, I believe it's better to fix it.
If you have a different mode of thinking w.r.t how we should design protocol in a trust-minimized, open, adversarial environment such as Bitcoin, I'm curious to listen to it.
Of course not. If you deliver any critical software, you should attach a solid manual explaining all the corner cases and rough edges. Even better would be to enshrine the manual directly in your software API to minimize the footgunish behaviors. E.g, with any ECC library, forbidding to reuse nonces. If your user still ignores or misread the manual and provides an insecure input, there is not that much you can do.
Given there are like 17000 public LN nodes, if half of them adopt full-rbf it should give already a good number of full-rbf transaction-relay routes across the p2p network graph. When we're there, we can measure and think more about how to tune the full-rbf sub-topology.
Because it's breaking the reliability and security of their use-cases. Use-cases which didn't exist a few years ago. The mempool DoS vector is described here [4]. To the best of my understanding, it might affect a bunch of use-cases, such as dual-funded channels, on-chain DLCs, p2p coinjoins, batched submarine swaps out. With the attack described, the honest set of users might not have visibility of the network mempools that there is a malicious, low-cost, opt-out double-spend preventing the propagation of their multi-party transaction. With the existence of a full-rbf transaction-relay topology, the multi-party transaction is able to replace the optout.
Selecting a full-node to underpin any serious Bitcoin infrastructure or secure a significant stack of coins should be submitted to a fully-fledged decision-making process. Many factors are likely to matter such as the level of activity of the contributor community, the chain of trust w.r.t dependencies, the security incident track records, the quality of the documentation, the exhaustivity and robustness of the set of features, ...
Developers are also Bitcoin users, and they're modifying the software to suit their use-case needs. And that's exactly the purpose of the 'full-rbf' PR I'm proposing, aiming to propose a "good" policy for a Lightning node, without actually seeking to change the default.
If they're parties interested in implementing more RBF policy options in Bitcoin Core, I think they're free to propose such changes and invest the engineering effort to do so. If you're interested in advancing the state of policy options in Bitcoin Core, there are a lot of interesting resources available and communities to encourage you in the learning process to contribute to the codebase [6].
Hi alicexbt,
Thanks for taking time to review the pull request,
> 1)If something relies on a policy which can be changed without breaking consensus rules, how is it secure in any case with or without full rbf?
Your Lightning node software relies on far more software and hardware components than the transaction-relay p2p network. One could list the operating system on which is running your Lightning process or the compiler toolchain turning out your Lightning source code in a binary artifact. Some weird kernel's memory mapping change could allow access to your channel funding keys, _without_ breaking the Bitcoin consensus rules [0]. Moreover, your Lightning node is also relying on the existence of a global Internet allowing your HTLC transaction to flow from your physical host to the crowd of transactions confirming in the blockchain. Due to this "protocol assumption" your channel balance would be vulnerable to any change in your ISP routing policy, e.g refusing to accept your IPV4 traffic by a sudden desiderata to impose an IPV6 supremacy. Still _without_ breaking the Bitcoin consensus rules. Of course, the odds of your ISP operator adopting this behavior are really low, mostly because your operator has to bind to social and economic constraints to stay in business.
And I believe this imperative to stay in business is certainly not absent in the incentives of the Bitcoin node operators. You're free to run any policy on your node, especially one hardening the safety of your operations beyond the default one. However, if you start to a transaction-relay non-compatible with miner incentives, you won't have an efficient view of the blockspace demand, and from then won't be able to offer compelling feerates to execute your business transactions to satisfy your client needs. Or you won't consolidate your wallet UTXOs at times of low-demand. Indeed, a sane visibility of the mempools might not be critical now for your Bitcoin operations, but this is not likely to become true with miner's coinbase reward lowering with time and the system security relying on a fruitful fee market.
So assuming there is a significant number of economically rational entities running p2p nodes, I think it's a reasonable assumption for Lightning developers that a policy maximizing miner's income and economic nodes operations will be widely run on the p2p network, and therefore lay its security model on that. When there is a gap between the economically optimal policy (full-rbf) and the effectively deployed one (optin), and this gap constitutes a flaw for exploitation, I believe it's better to fix it.
If you have a different mode of thinking w.r.t how we should design protocol in a trust-minimized, open, adversarial environment such as Bitcoin, I'm curious to listen to it.
> If I write a python script that expects user to enter char 'a' or 'b' but user can enter 'c' and there is no code to handle exceptions or other chars, will it be secure?
Of course not. If you deliver any critical software, you should attach a solid manual explaining all the corner cases and rough edges. Even better would be to enshrine the manual directly in your software API to minimize the footgunish behaviors. E.g, with any ECC library, forbidding to reuse nonces. If your user still ignores or misread the manual and provides an insecure input, there is not that much you can do.
By analogy, I believe that's the same with Lightning. One recommendation of the deployment manual would be to be always connected to a full-rbf transaction-relay topology. Defaulting to this rule and your node exposes far more surface of attacks. Assuming the manual has been well-written (big assumption!), I don't think the system designer would be to blame.
That said, one issue to confess with current Lightning is our lack of understanding of what should be figured out in the LN user manual for safe operations. I would say that's an active area of research [1] [2] [3]
> 2)full-rbf is not default in the 2 open pull requests, so this experiment still relies on users changing RBF policies manually. If majority of nodes use default opt-in policy, how would this affect vulnerable projects?
If we define the goal as ensuring there is a significant number of transaction-relay routes between the L2s nodes requiring full-rbf and the set of miners supporting this policy, and the set of miners is populated enough, there is no need to convince the majority of nodes operators to switch to full-rbf.
Beyond landing the 'full-rbf' pull request, in pursuit of a partial full-rbf deployment, I'm thinking of reaching out to Lightning vendors to recommend running LN nodes operators run their full-node with the setting enabled. And also to few mining pool operators to advocate the potential increase in their income.
Given there are like 17000 public LN nodes, if half of them adopt full-rbf it should give already a good number of full-rbf transaction-relay routes across the p2p network graph. When we're there, we can measure and think more about how to tune the full-rbf sub-topology.
> 2-3% transactions are replaced with opt-in RBF, if someone did not replace earlier why would they do it with full RBF?
Because it's breaking the reliability and security of their use-cases. Use-cases which didn't exist a few years ago. The mempool DoS vector is described here [4]. To the best of my understanding, it might affect a bunch of use-cases, such as dual-funded channels, on-chain DLCs, p2p coinjoins, batched submarine swaps out. With the attack described, the honest set of users might not have visibility of the network mempools that there is a malicious, low-cost, opt-out double-spend preventing the propagation of their multi-party transaction. With the existence of a full-rbf transaction-relay topology, the multi-party transaction is able to replace the optout.
None of those use-cases were deployed a few years ago, and the understanding of the interactions with the mempool policy is still nascent among their operators. However, if we assume that layering is a way to grow the Bitcoin ecosystem, as I do, it is reasonable to expect they will constitute a notable share of the Bitcoin transaction traffic during the next decade.
> I am not opposed to full-rbf; rather, I am opposed to the notion that full-rbf will solve all problems
I wished we had a magic Silver Bullet (tm) solving all the Bitcoin problems...
I'm only advocating a partial full-rbf deployment to solve a real precise security issue affecting multi-party funded transactions. That said, full-rbf is far from solving the known set of problems affecting the L2s due to interactions with network mempools. E,g, see package relay motivation [5]
> I would suggest users to try Bitcoin Knots instead which already has an option to disable all RBF policies if required, opt-in and full RBF policy.
Selecting a full-node to underpin any serious Bitcoin infrastructure or secure a significant stack of coins should be submitted to a fully-fledged decision-making process. Many factors are likely to matter such as the level of activity of the contributor community, the chain of trust w.r.t dependencies, the security incident track records, the quality of the documentation, the exhaustivity and robustness of the set of features, ...
This process might take tens of hours, to be duplicated by the number of node operators who would have to do the full-node vending switch. If you consider the cognitive cost at the level of the Bitcoin ecosystem, it's far less costly to implement and review a few lines of codes in Bitcoin Core.
> Developers should provide basic RBF policy options rather than attempting to define what constitutes a good policy and removing the ability to disable something when necessary.
Of course, this statement assumes there is a clear line between the developers and the users. Developers are also Bitcoin users, and they're modifying the software to suit their use-case needs. And that's exactly the purpose of the 'full-rbf' PR I'm proposing, aiming to propose a "good" policy for a Lightning node, without actually seeking to change the default. If they're parties interested in implementing more RBF policy options in Bitcoin Core, I think they're free to propose such changes and invest the engineering effort to do so. If you're interested in advancing the state of policy options in Bitcoin Core, there are a lot of interesting resources available and communities to encourage you in the learning process to contribute to the codebase [6].
Antoine
[1] https://github.com/t-bast/lightning-docs/blob/master/pinning-attacks.md
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.01418.pdf
[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.08513.pdf
[4] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html
[5] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020493.html
[6] https://www.summerofbitcoin.org
Le jeu. 16 juin 2022 à 00:15, alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com> a écrit :Hi Antoine,Thanks for opening the pull request to add support for full-rbf in Bitcoin Core. I have a disagreements with the approach and questions.Recent discussions among LN devs have brought back on the surface concerns about the security of multi-party funded transactions (coinjoins, dual-funded LN channels, on-chain DLCs, ...). It turns out there is a low-fruit, naive DoS vector playable against the funding flow of any such construction due to the lack of existent full-rbf transaction-relay topology on today's p2p network [0] [1].1)If something relies on a policy which can be changed without breaking consensus rules, how is it secure in any case with or without full rbf? If I write a python script that expects user to enter char 'a' or 'b' but user can enter 'c' and there is no code to handle exceptions or other chars, will it be secure?2)full-rbf is not default in the 2 open pull requests, so this experiment still relies on users changing RBF policies manually. If majority of nodes use default opt-in policy, how would this affect vulnerable projects?If you're a mining operator looking to increase your income, you might be interested to experiment with full-rbf as a policy.Miners can only increase their income if users replace transactions. 2-3% transactions are replaced with opt-in RBF, if someone did not replace earlier why would they do it now even with full RBF? Or even if we add some users in it who could not signal for some reasons, do you think it would be anything above 5%?If you're a Bitcoin user or business and you don't like full-rbf, please express an opinion on how it might affect your software/operations. I'm always interested to learn more about mempool and transaction-relay interactions with upper-layers and applications and to listen to feedback in those areas, and I guess a lot of other Bitcoin researchers/devs too. I know there have been a lot of concerns about full-rbf in the past, however I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem has matured a lot since then.I am not opposed to full-rbf; rather, I am opposed to the notion that full-rbf will solve all problems and the lack of basic options in Bitcoin Core to employ/disable different RBF policies. There is also a speculation about making full RBF default in an year which isn't relevant to discuss at this point without trying different RBF policies.I would suggest users to try Bitcoin Knots instead which already has an option to disable all RBF policies if required, opt-in and full RBF policy. This can also be done using GUI if not familiar with config optionmempoolreplacement.The rationale in PR #16171 was insufficient to justify removing it in the first place, had 2 NACKs and was reopened to merge it. Why bother with a few lines of code that may allow someone disable it if required in local mempool since it's only useful when a big percentage of miners utilize it and essentially underused according to the PR author? Developers should provide basic RBF policy options rather than attempting to define what constitutes a good policy and removing the ability to disable something when necessary./dev/fd0Sent with Proton Mail secure email.------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 at 5:55 AM, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi list,
Recent discussions among LN devs have brought back on the surface concerns about the security of multi-party funded transactions (coinjoins, dual-funded LN channels, on-chain DLCs, ...). It turns out there is a low-fruit, naive DoS vector playable against the funding flow of any such construction due to the lack of existent full-rbf transaction-relay topology on today's p2p network [0] [1]. While it does not consist in a direct loss of funds, if exploited well I think it's annoying enough to inflict significant timevalue loss or fee-bumping waste
to the future providers or distributed swarm of users doing multi-party funded transactions. Of course, it can be fixed one layer above by introducing either fidelity bonds or a reliable centralized coordinator, though at the price of an overhead per-participant ressources cost and loss in system openness [1].
For that reason, I believe it would be beneficial to the flourishing of multi-party funded transactions to fix the Dos vector by seeing a subset of the network running full-rbf and enabling propagation of honest multi-party transactions to the interested miners, replacing potential non-signaling double-spend from a malicious counterparty. Moving towards that direction, I've submitted a small patch against Bitcoin Core enabling it to turn on full-rbf as a policy, still under review [3]. The default setting stays **false**, i.e keeping opt-in RBF as a default replacement policy. I've started to run the patch on a public node at 146.190.224.15.
If you're a node operator curious to play with full-rbf, feel free to connect to this node or spawn up a toy, public node yourself. There is a ##uafrbf libera chat if you would like information on the settings or looking for full-rbf friends (though that step could be automated in the future by setting up a dedicated network bit and reserving a few outbound slots for them).
If you're a mining operator looking to increase your income, you might be interested to experiment with full-rbf as a policy. Indeed, in the future I believe the multi-party transactions issuers who need full-rbf to secure their funding flow should connect by default to full-rbf peers. One can conjecture that their transactions are likely to be more compelling in their feerate as their liquidity needs are higher than the simple transaction. For today, I think we have really few standards and bitcoin softwares relying on multi-party funded transactions [4].
If you're a Bitcoin user or business and you don't like full-rbf, please express an opinion on how it might affect your software/operations. I'm always interested to learn more about mempool and transaction-relay interactions with upper-layers and applications and to listen to feedback in those areas, and I guess a lot of other Bitcoin researchers/devs too. I know there have been a lot of concerns about full-rbf in the past, however I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem has matured a lot since then.
Any mistakes or missing context is my own.
Cheers,
Antoine
[0] For more info about replace-by-fee, see https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/replace-by-fee/
[1] For more details about the DoS vector, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html
[2] E.g I think it does not affect the Lightning Pool service, as there is a preliminary step where the participant funds are locked first in a 2-of-2 with the coordinator before being committed in the multi-party batch transaction.
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353
[4] E.g DLCs : https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/blob/master/Transactions.md ; Lightning dual-funded channel : https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/851