From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC164C0032; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED0241C60; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org CED0241C60 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=T3zUx8kO X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 5SjXbDFsETll; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C41641B94; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 2C41641B94 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1697563038; x=1697822238; bh=6KRDyoYaywgs23839RZVshICyAYDMtdg5Ucw3auhV6Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=T3zUx8kO7sNMIIzxVzcNyV2MaciTFEYbg5dFCqeIvYD6vMxFGNC5Zdbn5IplG1Ia6 qJxFpOF6CpM5SslxQ/g3O2v9AM14jffExqnYahZTMTDFFOeucj6hD/8gEXCayOaf0D 6G/UC3/sA0UfNfre8/J9p4TELeL3Pg+eRMBpBrwK/iLXDbpa4iEmmdXrLebXUkAJ0b kFZBqdrgKVAcgUlQ7h3lMBLNXSgHdDYxc1ioenb5V0dzVKaO5++z1F3E7hPQ0L7iOV EEGjk/FYF6tRpOFjGCTqYMbsl9gibDuJIviWJuLOGTzCxDQkA7pB+ZdgvCfTAOjZ0G tOPewf2wfUGQg== Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:04 +0000 To: Greg Sanders From: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , "lightning-dev\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants 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: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:17:22 -0000 Good morning Greg, > > I do not know if existing splice implementations actually perform such = a check. > Unless all splice implementations do this, then any kind of batched splic= ing is risky. > As long as the implementation decides to splice again at some point when = a prior > splice isn't confirming, it will self-resolve once any subsequent splice = is confirmed. Do note that there is a risk here that the reason for "not confirming" is b= ecause of an unexpected increase in mempool usage. In particular, if the attack is not being performed, it is possible for the= previous splice tx that was not confirming for a while, to be the one that= confirms in the end, instead of the subsequent splice. This is admittedly an edge case, but one that could potentially be specific= ally attacked and could lead to loss of funds if the implementations naivel= y deleted the signatures for commitment transactions for the previously-not= -confirming splice transaction. Indeed, as I understood it, part of the splice proposal is that while a cha= nnel is being spliced, it should not be spliced again, which your proposal = seems to violate. Regards, ZmnSCPxj