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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EAFC0175
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D0C87E8C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hTbeN+us6YuQ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:47:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.137])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B164187E84
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:47:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:46:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1587646020;
bh=bdz4AmuE1kJNiY7sHfvMa99LyScR/zRqRrd7Ef4A79U=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=s1TYmbFsNfT0exPAqASGXxrKe45jHbTZkItD32wVsGIo3Bf5Ck1uX17PMIXwug73t
+aquqAATcwdIEuFdABTdauMyIeu3bgkm9PquXx6vCdluFNk0w7FTqXB3B38KFr6NG4
RHEhx5krKXj2wX34RvQJHWvPB0ns0VZ3Ad0XhYPc=
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <62P_3wvv8z7AVCdKPfh-bs30-LliHkx9GI9Og3wqIK6hadIG0d6MJJm077zac1erpPUy31FqgZjkAjEl9AQtrOCg4XA5cxozBb7-OIbbgvE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <67334082-5ABA-45C7-9C09-FF19B119C80D@mattcorallo.com>
References: <PtYNeePySy_thDHm8FwIIGEk32EjJpSmiwPctyEg0hOrLZEHjO1IBghm4MWY88g51K-XF2pf_JDnW0UdTL6QSbACEj21h9U1s5ITc_N3I6Q=@protonmail.com>
<67334082-5ABA-45C7-9C09-FF19B119C80D@mattcorallo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:47:04 -0000
Good morning Matt,
> > - C directly contacts miners with an out-of-band proposal to replace =
its transaction with an alternative that is much smaller and has a low fee,=
but much better feerate.
>
> Or they can just wait. For example in today=E2=80=99s mempool it would no=
t be strange for a transaction at 1 sat/vbyte to wait a day but eventually =
confirm.
That introduces the possibility that the entire tree (with high total fee, =
remember) gets confirmed, so it would be better for C to replace it with an=
alternative to a different address C still controls, with a slightly bette=
r fee rate but smaller (no child transactions) and lower total fee, so an e=
conomically-rational C will make that effort (and if there are still other =
transactions in the mempool, an economically-rational miner will accept thi=
s proposal).
But in any case this is a minor detail and the attack will work either way.
>
> > - Miners, being economically rational, accept this proposal and inclu=
de 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 hashloc=
k 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 an=
d B queries the peer for this transaction, extracting the preimage and clai=
ming the A->B HTLC.
>
> Note that no query is required. The problem has been solved and the preim=
age-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?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
