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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
|
Return-Path: <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6630D9CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:37:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it1-f169.google.com (mail-it1-f169.google.com
[209.85.166.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 865947DB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it1-f169.google.com with SMTP id b5so4477310iti.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:37:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=blockstream.io; s=google;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=jcGLxk1BHECoyMg22jbKrAJBpRBiIFhPtP5fnNqy48Y=;
b=1Cq8+JWmZEaXM5OEJkRj0OeK8mDhGP0XB4BjgskzS+iiqa+cWfGDWAu7DtBm7f3n/8
QTJTzAVbwPmn2yMrdN2yujO6YCh6DirnzHC4VGKJ5NxThYi7gPdyhFgkP90fTDDkbtmI
JE0HmQIhJp8sZ36GfNf4aqT8f7Lhh9RIgnnbQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=jcGLxk1BHECoyMg22jbKrAJBpRBiIFhPtP5fnNqy48Y=;
b=Awuft/Ql3KDpg5HLPhS+41g+pqH6zqPd5+6/uaap8vibXbHhisrnEOQzKBisMVGsCr
gSAyAs4APFWZuegXn+aq630W7gYoH8txi4xi6Tm8n8tCMeEZl0ws5quac2Mi/o9xGk60
XlRQT34A9p5HGqyvRPhZ25UsV38cUhRFGJlScVl/S9oIcC7/COp0+ATqdEZmW4ajd6YE
urcOatZqfxv1j2U0ucyTYO4uB5+xwSMhVJgOr2Hd08mS8sopj8J6y96DyY3J/83mBbV7
oV0pga+l9zGk0OSpBjWxX8/D8QI5zSGfIq4Ww9ZISFLPUHRxx4GeYuRmQ3KGXlH/TCtP
FLNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYvBSdq2OtQVJhiedylO/NGok64ZLazUscPwgBT4K+TsfY3RkOJ
0n/S6q9uUV26TXulm9iVPJ7nYOrAjVCsf5/rqoOGnw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WgA1XaY+FgOeZG3MBspzmdERFsyXYmFzAhpnE59iRXpcKUeVYvvrjb8qW6yTn42AFi1IRtDK+ys5OOncU2XYI=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:1490:: with SMTP id 138mr3038169itg.101.1544542631616;
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:37:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPg+sBhuPG-2GXc+Bp0yv5ywry2fk56LPLT4AY0Kcs+YEoz4FA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBiu0BjZEtz-t7m3M+TnAEDG_k1GKtxwkOKh6qrSezUO7g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMZUoKkJdU0P_dVRvHn5zY6xUHYUptdK221ioQMp3FXZAerp3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20181209224157.mytaebwmw5o5wifa@email>
In-Reply-To: <20181209224157.mytaebwmw5o5wifa@email>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:36:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKnnEJ9=w3Q2a__WEd2gMWDxT55G7omRM5DTuaoEdm1H7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: dave@dtrt.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e60025057cc0daf2"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:59:30 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:37:13 -0000
--000000000000e60025057cc0daf2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I don't believe that the default RBF policy works that way. My
understanding is that current policy requires an absolute fee increase (by
an amount related to incrementalrelayfee). There have been proposals to
change default RBF policy, however even my proposal <
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html>
still requires a minimal amount of absolute fee increase as a DoS defense.
(I'm reading your comment as attempting to rebroadcast the original
transaction with the same fee amount, with its relatively higher fee-rate).
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:00 AM David A. Harding <dave@dtrt.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > One more item to consider is "signature covers witness weight".
> >
> > While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witness
> > malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it
> does
> > eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's
> > perspective, the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount of
> > witness data and therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the
> transaction.
>
> To what degree is this an actual problem? If the mutated transaction
> pays a feerate at least incremental-relay-fee[1] below the original
> transaction, then the original transaction can be rebroadcast as an RBF
> replacement of the mutated transaction (unless the mutated version has
> been pinned[2]).
>
> -Dave
>
> [1] $ bitcoind -help-debug | grep -A2 incremental
> -incrementalrelayfee=<amt>
> Fee rate (in BTC/kB) used to define cost of relay, used for mempool
> limiting and BIP 125 replacement. (default: 0.00001)
>
> [2]
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-meant-by-transaction-pinning
>
>
--000000000000e60025057cc0daf2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">I don't believe that the default RBF =
policy works that way.=C2=A0 My understanding is that current policy requir=
es an absolute fee increase (by an amount related to incrementalrelayfee).=
=C2=A0 There have been proposals to change default RBF policy, however even=
my proposal <<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bit=
coin-dev/2018-February/015717.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper=
mail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html</a>> still requires a minimal=
amount of absolute fee increase as a DoS defense.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><b=
r></div><div>(I'm reading your comment as attempting to rebroadcast the=
original transaction with the same fee amount, with its relatively higher =
fee-rate).<br></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:00 AM David A. Harding <<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:dave@dtrt.org">dave@dtrt.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:57:09AM =
-0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> One more item to consider is "signature covers witness weight&quo=
t;.<br>
> <br>
> While signing the witness weight doesn't completely eliminate witn=
ess<br>
> malleability (of the kind that can cause grief for compact blocks), it=
does<br>
> eliminate the worst kind of witness malleability from the user's<b=
r>
> perspective, the kind where malicious relay nodes increase the amount =
of<br>
> witness data and therefore reduce the overall fee-rate of the transact=
ion.<br>
<br>
To what degree is this an actual problem?=C2=A0 If the mutated transaction<=
br>
pays a feerate at least incremental-relay-fee[1] below the original<br>
transaction, then the original transaction can be rebroadcast as an RBF<br>
replacement of the mutated transaction (unless the mutated version has<br>
been pinned[2]).<br>
<br>
-Dave<br>
<br>
[1] $ bitcoind -help-debug | grep -A2 incremental<br>
=C2=A0 -incrementalrelayfee=3D<amt><br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Fee rate (in BTC/kB) used to define cost of rela=
y, used for mempool<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0limiting and BIP 125 replacement. (default: 0.00=
001)<br>
<br>
[2] <a href=3D"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-me=
ant-by-transaction-pinning" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bi=
tcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80803/what-is-meant-by-transaction-pinnin=
g</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>
--000000000000e60025057cc0daf2--
|
