1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E98C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:01:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E0B40487
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:01:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 89E0B40487
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id LL8D18jeQmiN
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:01:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1A5FC40363
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us [208.79.240.5])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5FC40363
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EF82800051;
Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:00:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us
[IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA;
Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:00:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 17:00:58 -1000
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y2l1/qXHxyctU9ir@petertodd.org>
References: <Y2ln2fJ+8+Q0qS0E@petertodd.org> <Y2l1/qXHxyctU9ir@petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.10
Message-ID: <f360357e2d9655360766595d81a82e87@dtrt.org>
X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy:
http://www.rollernet.us/policy
X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 3072.636dbaea.e2e02.0
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Using Full-RBF to fix BIP-125 Rule #3 Pinning
with nLockTime
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:01:06 -0000
On 2022-11-07 11:17, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We can ensure with high probability that the transaction can be
> cancelled/mined
> at some point after N blocks by pre-signing a transaction, with
> nLockTime set
> sufficiently far into the future, spending one or more inputs of the
> transaction with a sufficiently high fee that it would replace
> transaction(s)
> attempting to exploit Rule #3 pinning (note how the package limits in
> Bitcoin
> Core help here).
This implies a floor on the funds involved in a contract. For example,
if the pinning transaction is 100,000 vbytes at a feerate of 1 sat/vb,
the minimum contract amount must be a bit over 100,000 sats (about $17
USD at current prices). However, participants in a contract not meant
to settle immediately probably need to assume the worst case future
pinning, for example where transactions paying even 100 sat/vb won't be
mined promptly; in which case the minimum contract amount becomes
something like $1,700 USD.
That seems sub-optimal to me.
-Dave
|
