From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] RBFR makes the CPFP carve-out obsolete with cluster mempool, without upgrading LN nodes; TRUC/V3 does not
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:08:28 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6c222c758e10e8061ccdcc180b1826a3@dtrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zp674YtMTaUX3imH@petertodd.org>
On 2024-07-22 10:06, Peter Todd wrote:
> can [you] point to actual "significant discussion and analysis"
> of the idea
The idea for imbued TRUC was developed in part during a live
discussion with LN maintainers:
https://btctranscripts.com/lightning-specification/lightning-2024-01-15-specification-call/
I'm aware of three discussions about it on the Delving Bitcoin Forum:
-
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lightning-transactions-with-v3-and-ephemeral-anchors/418/2
-
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/sibling-eviction-for-v3-transactions/472#benefits-1
- (as previously linked)
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/analysis-of-attempting-to-imbue-ln-commitment-transaction-spends-with-v3-semantics/527
Each of those discussions was summarized by a Bitcoin Optech Newsletter,
a publication read by many Bitcoin and LN protocol developers
(disclosure: I co-author the newsletter):
"Adding this policy and automatically applying it to current LN
anchors
will allow the CPFP carve-out rule to be removed, which is necessary
for
cluster mempool to be implemented, which should allow making
replacements of all kinds more incentive-compatible in the future."
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/01/31/#kindred-replace-by-fee
"Imbued v3 logic: In response to concerns voiced in the LN spec
meeting
that it may take a long time for LN to design, implement, and deploy
these changes, Gregory Sanders proposed an intermediate stage with
temporary special treatment of transactions that look like current
anchors-style LN commitment transactions, allowing Bitcoin Core to
deploy cluster mempool without being blocked by LN development."
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/01/24/#imbued-v3-logic
"[...] research into the idea of automatically applying v3 transaction
relay policy to anchors-style LN commitment and fee-bumping
transactions
(see Newsletter #286 for the underlying imbued v3 proposal)."
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/02/14/#what-would-have-happened-if-v3-semantics-had-been-applied-to-anchor-outputs-a-year-ago
The word "imbue" is mentioned in 7 separate posts by 4 separate authors
in a Bitcoin Core discussion issue that includes comments from three
different LN implementation maintainers plus @petertodd, who I assumed
was you: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319
That thread also links to a draft implementation of imbued v3, which was
used for the Analysis forum post:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29427
As discussed in the "sibling eviction" thread (summarized in the
2024-01-31 newsletter), one of the necessary parts for imbued TRUC to be
effective at replacing CPFP-CO is sibling eviction. A version of that
(currently only for opt-in TRUC) was merged into Bitcoin Core several
months
ago: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29306
I note that none of the above was hidden or hard to find. All three of
the discussion summaries quoted above are linked on the Bitcoin Optech
topic page about v3 relay/TRUC, and two of them are also linked on the
topic pages about CPFP-CO and anchor outputs. Most of the other stuff I
found by searching the bitcoin/bitcoin repository for the word "imbue":
- https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/version-3-transaction-relay/
- https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/cpfp-carve-out/
- https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/anchor-outputs/
> Frankly, unless you can point to actual "significant discussion and
> analysis"
> of the idea, it's dishonest and toxic of you to portray it as such as
> you
> should know better.
I'm sorry you've been unable to keep up with protocol development and
are confusing that for me being dishonest and toxic. May I suggest you
subscribe to the weekly Optech newsletter? It's free.
-Dave
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6c222c758e10e8061ccdcc180b1826a3%40dtrt.org.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-22 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-18 15:56 [bitcoindev] A "Free" Relay Attack Taking Advantage of The Lack of Full-RBF In Core Peter Todd
2024-07-18 23:04 ` [bitcoindev] " Antoine Riard
2024-07-19 1:05 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-19 13:52 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-19 14:38 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-19 23:58 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-20 0:46 ` 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2024-07-21 2:06 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-21 20:17 ` 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2024-07-22 1:59 ` 'Anonymous User' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2024-07-24 0:44 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-24 0:35 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-19 12:41 ` /dev /fd0
2024-07-19 23:56 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-20 5:57 ` /dev /fd0
2024-07-20 15:08 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-21 2:13 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-21 6:16 ` /dev /fd0
2024-07-21 2:12 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-19 18:26 ` [bitcoindev] " Murch
2024-07-20 14:10 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-20 6:41 ` David A. Harding
2024-07-20 15:03 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-20 15:30 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-21 15:35 ` David A. Harding
2024-07-21 20:25 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-24 0:38 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-21 2:10 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-22 15:10 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-24 0:41 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-22 11:45 ` [bitcoindev] RBFR makes the CPFP carve-out obsolete with cluster mempool, without upgrading LN nodes; TRUC/V3 does not Peter Todd
2024-07-22 16:43 ` David A. Harding
2024-07-22 20:06 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-22 22:08 ` David A. Harding [this message]
2024-07-23 11:29 ` Peter Todd
2024-07-24 0:42 ` Antoine Riard
2024-07-22 17:13 ` [bitcoindev] A "Free" Relay Attack Taking Advantage of The Lack of Full-RBF In Core Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6c222c758e10e8061ccdcc180b1826a3@dtrt.org \
--to=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox