Great, thanks for this clarification!

Can you confirm that this won't be an issue either with your
example 2C (in your first set of diagrams)? If I understand it
correctly it shouldn't, but I'd rather be 100% sure.

A package A + C will be able to replace A' + B regardless of
the weight of A' + B?

Thanks,
Bastien

Le mar. 21 sept. 2021 à 18:42, Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi Bastien,
>
> Excellent diagram :D
>
> > Here the issue is that a revoked commitment tx A' is pinned in other
> > mempools, with a long chain of descendants (or descendants that reach
> > the maximum replaceable size).
> > We would really like A + C to be able to replace this pinned A'.
> > We can't submit individually because A on its own won't replace A'...
>
> Right, this is a key motivation for having Package RBF. In this case, A+C
> can replace A' + B1...B24.
>
> Due to the descendant limit (each node operator can increase it on their
> own node, but the default is 25), A' should have no more than 25
> descendants, even including CPFP carve out. As long as A only conflicts
> with A', it won't be trying to replace more than 100 transactions. The
> proposed package RBF will allow C to pay for A's conflicts, since their
> package feerate is used in the fee comparisons. A is not a descendant of
> A', so the existence of B1...B24 does not prevent the replacement.
>
> Best,
> Gloria
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:18 PM Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien@acinq.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gloria,
>>
>> > I believe this attack is mitigated as long as we attempt to submit
>> transactions individually
>>
>> Unfortunately not, as there exists a pinning scenario in LN where a
>> different commit tx is pinned, but you actually can't know which one.
>>
>> Since I really like your diagrams, I made one as well to illustrate:
>>
>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/31281497/134198114-5e9c6857-e8fc-405a-be57-18181d5e54cb.jpg
>>
>> Here the issue is that a revoked commitment tx A' is pinned in other
>> mempools, with a long chain of descendants (or descendants that reach
>> the maximum replaceable size).
>>
>> We would really like A + C to be able to replace this pinned A'.
>> We can't submit individually because A on its own won't replace A'...
>>
>> > I would note that this proposal doesn't accommodate something like
>> diagram B, where C is getting CPFP carve out and wants to bring a +1
>>
>> No worries, that case shouldn't be a concern.
>> I believe any L2 protocol can always ensure it confirms such tx trees
>> "one depth after the other" without impacting funds safety, so it
>> only needs to ensure A + C can get into mempools.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bastien
>>
>> Le mar. 21 sept. 2021 à 13:18, Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Bastien,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your feedback!
>>>
>>> > In your example we have a parent transaction A already in the mempool
>>> > and an unrelated child B. We submit a package C + D where C spends
>>> > another of A's inputs. You're highlighting that this package may be
>>> > rejected because of the unrelated transaction(s) B.
>>>
>>> > The way I see this, an attacker can abuse this rule to ensure
>>> > transaction A stays pinned in the mempool without confirming by
>>> > broadcasting a set of child transactions that reach these limits
>>> > and pay low fees (where A would be a commit tx in LN).
>>>
>>> I believe you are describing a pinning attack in which your adversarial
>>> counterparty attempts to monopolize the mempool descendant limit of the
>>> shared  transaction A in order to prevent you from submitting a fee-bumping
>>> child C; I've tried to illustrate this as diagram A here:
>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/134159860-068080d0-bbb6-4356-ae74-00df00644c74.png
>>> (please let me know if I'm misunderstanding).
>>>
>>> I believe this attack is mitigated as long as we attempt to submit
>>> transactions individually (and thus take advantage of CPFP carve out)
>>> before attempting package validation. So, in scenario A2, even if the
>>> mempool receives a package with A+C, it would deduplicate A, submit C as an
>>> individual transaction, and allow it due to the CPFP carve out exemption. A
>>> more general goal is: if a transaction would propagate successfully on its
>>> own now, it should still propagate regardless of whether it is included in
>>> a package. The best way to ensure this, as far as I can tell, is to always
>>> try to submit them individually first.
>>>
>>> I would note that this proposal doesn't accommodate something like
>>> diagram B, where C is getting CPFP carve out and wants to bring a +1 (e.g.
>>> C has very low fees and is bumped by D). I don't think this is a use case
>>> since C should be the one fee-bumping A, but since we're talking about
>>> limitations around the CPFP carve out, this is it.
>>>
>>> Let me know if this addresses your concerns?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gloria
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:19 AM Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien@acinq.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gloria,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this detailed post!
>>>>
>>>> The illustrations you provided are very useful for this kind of graph
>>>> topology problems.
>>>>
>>>> The rules you lay out for package RBF look good to me at first glance
>>>> as there are some subtle improvements compared to BIP 125.
>>>>
>>>> > 1. A package cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=25` count and
>>>> > `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=101KvB` total size [8]
>>>>
>>>> I have a question regarding this rule, as your example 2C could be
>>>> concerning for LN (unless I didn't understand it correctly).
>>>>
>>>> This also touches on the package RBF rule 5 ("The package cannot
>>>> replace more than 100 mempool transactions.")
>>>>
>>>> In your example we have a parent transaction A already in the mempool
>>>> and an unrelated child B. We submit a package C + D where C spends
>>>> another of A's inputs. You're highlighting that this package may be
>>>> rejected because of the unrelated transaction(s) B.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see this, an attacker can abuse this rule to ensure
>>>> transaction A stays pinned in the mempool without confirming by
>>>> broadcasting a set of child transactions that reach these limits
>>>> and pay low fees (where A would be a commit tx in LN).
>>>>
>>>> We had to create the CPFP carve-out rule explicitly to work around
>>>> this limitation, and I think it would be necessary for package RBF
>>>> as well, because in such cases we do want to be able to submit a
>>>> package A + C where C pays high fees to speed up A's confirmation,
>>>> regardless of unrelated unconfirmed children of A...
>>>>
>>>> We could submit only C to benefit from the existing CPFP carve-out
>>>> rule, but that wouldn't work if our local mempool doesn't have A yet,
>>>> but other remote mempools do.
>>>>
>>>> Is my concern justified? Is this something that we should dig into a
>>>> bit deeper?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bastien
>>>>
>>>> Le jeu. 16 sept. 2021 à 09:55, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm writing to propose a set of mempool policy changes to enable
>>>>> package
>>>>> validation (in preparation for package relay) in Bitcoin Core. These
>>>>> would not
>>>>> be consensus or P2P protocol changes. However, since mempool policy
>>>>> significantly affects transaction propagation, I believe this is
>>>>> relevant for
>>>>> the mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> My proposal enables packages consisting of multiple parents and 1
>>>>> child. If you
>>>>> develop software that relies on specific transaction relay assumptions
>>>>> and/or
>>>>> are interested in using package relay in the future, I'm very
>>>>> interested to hear
>>>>> your feedback on the utility or restrictiveness of these package
>>>>> policies for
>>>>> your use cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> A draft implementation of this proposal can be found in [Bitcoin Core
>>>>> PR#22290][1].
>>>>>
>>>>> An illustrated version of this post can be found at
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/glozow/dc4e9d5c5b14ade7cdfac40f43adb18a.
>>>>> I have also linked the images below.
>>>>>
>>>>> ## Background
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to skip this section if you are already familiar with
>>>>> mempool policy
>>>>> and package relay terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Terminology Clarifications
>>>>>
>>>>> * Package = an ordered list of related transactions, representable by
>>>>> a Directed
>>>>>   Acyclic Graph.
>>>>> * Package Feerate = the total modified fees divided by the total
>>>>> virtual size of
>>>>>   all transactions in the package.
>>>>>     - Modified fees = a transaction's base fees + fee delta applied by
>>>>> the user
>>>>>       with `prioritisetransaction`. As such, we expect this to vary
>>>>> across
>>>>> mempools.
>>>>>     - Virtual Size = the maximum of virtual sizes calculated using
>>>>> [BIP141
>>>>>       virtual size][2] and sigop weight. [Implemented here in Bitcoin
>>>>> Core][3].
>>>>>     - Note that feerate is not necessarily based on the base fees and
>>>>> serialized
>>>>>       size.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Fee-Bumping = user/wallet actions that take advantage of miner
>>>>> incentives to
>>>>>   boost a transaction's candidacy for inclusion in a block, including
>>>>> Child Pays
>>>>> for Parent (CPFP) and [BIP125][12] Replace-by-Fee (RBF). Our intention
>>>>> in
>>>>> mempool policy is to recognize when the new transaction is more
>>>>> economical to
>>>>> mine than the original one(s) but not open DoS vectors, so there are
>>>>> some
>>>>> limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Policy
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of the mempool is to store the best (to be most
>>>>> incentive-compatible
>>>>> with miners, highest feerate) candidates for inclusion in a block.
>>>>> Miners use
>>>>> the mempool to build block templates. The mempool is also useful as a
>>>>> cache for
>>>>> boosting block relay and validation performance, aiding transaction
>>>>> relay, and
>>>>> generating feerate estimations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally, all consensus-valid transactions paying reasonable fees
>>>>> should make it
>>>>> to miners through normal transaction relay, without any special
>>>>> connectivity or
>>>>> relationships with miners. On the other hand, nodes do not have
>>>>> unlimited
>>>>> resources, and a P2P network designed to let any honest node broadcast
>>>>> their
>>>>> transactions also exposes the transaction validation engine to DoS
>>>>> attacks from
>>>>> malicious peers.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, for unconfirmed transactions we are considering for our
>>>>> mempool, we
>>>>> apply a set of validation rules in addition to consensus, primarily to
>>>>> protect
>>>>> us from resource exhaustion and aid our efforts to keep the highest fee
>>>>> transactions. We call this mempool _policy_: a set of (configurable,
>>>>> node-specific) rules that transactions must abide by in order to be
>>>>> accepted
>>>>> into our mempool. Transaction "Standardness" rules and mempool
>>>>> restrictions such
>>>>> as "too-long-mempool-chain" are both examples of policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Package Relay and Package Mempool Accept
>>>>>
>>>>> In transaction relay, we currently consider transactions one at a time
>>>>> for
>>>>> submission to the mempool. This creates a limitation in the node's
>>>>> ability to
>>>>> determine which transactions have the highest feerates, since we
>>>>> cannot take
>>>>> into account descendants (i.e. cannot use CPFP) until all the
>>>>> transactions are
>>>>> in the mempool. Similarly, we cannot use a transaction's descendants
>>>>> when
>>>>> considering it for RBF. When an individual transaction does not meet
>>>>> the mempool
>>>>> minimum feerate and the user isn't able to create a replacement
>>>>> transaction
>>>>> directly, it will not be accepted by mempools.
>>>>>
>>>>> This limitation presents a security issue for applications and users
>>>>> relying on
>>>>> time-sensitive transactions. For example, Lightning and other
>>>>> protocols create
>>>>> UTXOs with multiple spending paths, where one counterparty's spending
>>>>> path opens
>>>>> up after a timelock, and users are protected from cheating scenarios
>>>>> as long as
>>>>> they redeem on-chain in time. A key security assumption is that all
>>>>> parties'
>>>>> transactions will propagate and confirm in a timely manner. This
>>>>> assumption can
>>>>> be broken if fee-bumping does not work as intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> The end goal for Package Relay is to consider multiple transactions at
>>>>> the same
>>>>> time, e.g. a transaction with its high-fee child. This may help us
>>>>> better
>>>>> determine whether transactions should be accepted to our mempool,
>>>>> especially if
>>>>> they don't meet fee requirements individually or are better RBF
>>>>> candidates as a
>>>>> package. A combination of changes to mempool validation logic, policy,
>>>>> and
>>>>> transaction relay allows us to better propagate the transactions with
>>>>> the
>>>>> highest package feerates to miners, and makes fee-bumping tools more
>>>>> powerful
>>>>> for users.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "relay" part of Package Relay suggests P2P messaging changes, but
>>>>> a large
>>>>> part of the changes are in the mempool's package validation logic. We
>>>>> call this
>>>>> *Package Mempool Accept*.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Previous Work
>>>>>
>>>>> * Given that mempool validation is DoS-sensitive and complex, it would
>>>>> be
>>>>>   dangerous to haphazardly tack on package validation logic. Many
>>>>> efforts have
>>>>> been made to make mempool validation less opaque (see [#16400][4],
>>>>> [#21062][5],
>>>>> [#22675][6], [#22796][7]).
>>>>> * [#20833][8] Added basic capabilities for package validation, test
>>>>> accepts only
>>>>>   (no submission to mempool).
>>>>> * [#21800][9] Implemented package ancestor/descendant limit checks for
>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>   packages. Still test accepts only.
>>>>> * Previous package relay proposals (see [#16401][10], [#19621][11]).
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Existing Package Rules
>>>>>
>>>>> These are in master as introduced in [#20833][8] and [#21800][9]. I'll
>>>>> consider
>>>>> them as "given" in the rest of this document, though they can be
>>>>> changed, since
>>>>> package validation is test-accept only right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A package cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=25` count and
>>>>> `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=101KvB` total size [8]
>>>>>
>>>>>    *Rationale*: This is already enforced as mempool
>>>>> ancestor/descendant limits.
>>>>> Presumably, transactions in a package are all related, so exceeding
>>>>> this limit
>>>>> would mean that the package can either be split up or it wouldn't pass
>>>>> this
>>>>> mempool policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Packages must be topologically sorted: if any dependencies exist
>>>>> between
>>>>> transactions, parents must appear somewhere before children. [8]
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. A package cannot have conflicting transactions, i.e. none of them
>>>>> can spend
>>>>> the same inputs. This also means there cannot be duplicate
>>>>> transactions. [8]
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. When packages are evaluated against ancestor/descendant limits in a
>>>>> test
>>>>> accept, the union of all of their descendants and ancestors is
>>>>> considered. This
>>>>> is essentially a "worst case" heuristic where every transaction in the
>>>>> package
>>>>> is treated as each other's ancestor and descendant. [8]
>>>>> Packages for which ancestor/descendant limits are accurately captured
>>>>> by this
>>>>> heuristic: [19]
>>>>>
>>>>> There are also limitations such as the fact that CPFP carve out is not
>>>>> applied
>>>>> to package transactions. #20833 also disables RBF in package
>>>>> validation; this
>>>>> proposal overrides that to allow packages to use RBF.
>>>>>
>>>>> ## Proposed Changes
>>>>>
>>>>> The next step in the Package Mempool Accept project is to implement
>>>>> submission
>>>>> to mempool, initially through RPC only. This allows us to test the
>>>>> submission
>>>>> logic before exposing it on P2P.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> - Packages may contain already-in-mempool transactions.
>>>>> - Packages are 2 generations, Multi-Parent-1-Child.
>>>>> - Fee-related checks use the package feerate. This means that wallets
>>>>> can
>>>>> create a package that utilizes CPFP.
>>>>> - Parents are allowed to RBF mempool transactions with a set of rules
>>>>> similar
>>>>>   to BIP125. This enables a combination of CPFP and RBF, where a
>>>>> transaction's descendant fees pay for replacing mempool conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a draft implementation in [#22290][1]. It is WIP, but
>>>>> feedback is
>>>>> always welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Details
>>>>>
>>>>> #### Packages May Contain Already-in-Mempool Transactions
>>>>>
>>>>> A package may contain transactions that are already in the mempool. We
>>>>> remove
>>>>> ("deduplicate") those transactions from the package for the purposes
>>>>> of package
>>>>> mempool acceptance. If a package is empty after deduplication, we do
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: Mempools vary across the network. It's possible for a
>>>>> parent to be
>>>>> accepted to the mempool of a peer on its own due to differences in
>>>>> policy and
>>>>> fee market fluctuations. We should not reject or penalize the entire
>>>>> package for
>>>>> an individual transaction as that could be a censorship vector.
>>>>>
>>>>> #### Packages Are Multi-Parent-1-Child
>>>>>
>>>>> Only packages of a specific topology are permitted. Namely, a package
>>>>> is exactly
>>>>> 1 child with all of its unconfirmed parents. After deduplication, the
>>>>> package
>>>>> may be exactly the same, empty, 1 child, 1 child with just some of its
>>>>> unconfirmed parents, etc. Note that it's possible for the parents to
>>>>> be indirect
>>>>> descendants/ancestors of one another, or for parent and child to share
>>>>> a parent,
>>>>> so we cannot make any other topology assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: This allows for fee-bumping by CPFP. Allowing multiple
>>>>> parents
>>>>> makes it possible to fee-bump a batch of transactions. Restricting
>>>>> packages to a
>>>>> defined topology is also easier to reason about and simplifies the
>>>>> validation
>>>>> logic greatly. Multi-parent-1-child allows us to think of the package
>>>>> as one big
>>>>> transaction, where:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Inputs = all the inputs of parents + inputs of the child that come
>>>>> from
>>>>>   confirmed UTXOs
>>>>> - Outputs = all the outputs of the child + all outputs of the parents
>>>>> that
>>>>>   aren't spent by other transactions in the package
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples of packages that follow this rule (variations of example A
>>>>> show some
>>>>> possibilities after deduplication): ![image][15]
>>>>>
>>>>> #### Fee-Related Checks Use Package Feerate
>>>>>
>>>>> Package Feerate = the total modified fees divided by the total virtual
>>>>> size of
>>>>> all transactions in the package.
>>>>>
>>>>> To meet the two feerate requirements of a mempool, i.e., the
>>>>> pre-configured
>>>>> minimum relay feerate (`minRelayTxFee`) and dynamic mempool minimum
>>>>> feerate, the
>>>>> total package feerate is used instead of the individual feerate. The
>>>>> individual
>>>>> transactions are allowed to be below feerate requirements if the
>>>>> package meets
>>>>> the feerate requirements. For example, the parent(s) in the package
>>>>> can have 0
>>>>> fees but be paid for by the child.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: This can be thought of as "CPFP within a package,"
>>>>> solving the
>>>>> issue of a parent not meeting minimum fees on its own. This allows L2
>>>>> applications to adjust their fees at broadcast time instead of
>>>>> overshooting or
>>>>> risking getting stuck/pinned.
>>>>>
>>>>> We use the package feerate of the package *after deduplication*.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*:  It would be incorrect to use the fees of transactions
>>>>> that are
>>>>> already in the mempool, as we do not want a transaction's fees to be
>>>>> double-counted for both its individual RBF and package RBF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples F and G [14] show the same package, but P1 is submitted
>>>>> individually before
>>>>> the package in example G. In example F, we can see that the 300vB
>>>>> package pays
>>>>> an additional 200sat in fees, which is not enough to pay for its own
>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>> (BIP125#4). In example G, we can see that P1 pays enough to replace
>>>>> M1, but
>>>>> using P1's fees again during package submission would make it look
>>>>> like a 300sat
>>>>> increase for a 200vB package. Even including its fees and size would
>>>>> not be
>>>>> sufficient in this example, since the 300sat looks like enough for the
>>>>> 300vB
>>>>> package. The calculcation after deduplication is 100sat increase for a
>>>>> package
>>>>> of size 200vB, which correctly fails BIP125#4. Assume all transactions
>>>>> have a
>>>>> size of 100vB.
>>>>>
>>>>> #### Package RBF
>>>>>
>>>>> If a package meets feerate requirements as a package, the parents in
>>>>> the
>>>>> transaction are allowed to replace-by-fee mempool transactions. The
>>>>> child cannot
>>>>> replace mempool transactions. Multiple transactions can replace the
>>>>> same
>>>>> transaction, but in order to be valid, none of the transactions can
>>>>> try to
>>>>> replace an ancestor of another transaction in the same package (which
>>>>> would thus
>>>>> make its inputs unavailable).
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: Even if we are using package feerate, a package will not
>>>>> propagate
>>>>> as intended if RBF still requires each individual transaction to meet
>>>>> the
>>>>> feerate requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> We use a set of rules slightly modified from BIP125 as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> ##### Signaling (Rule #1)
>>>>>
>>>>> All mempool transactions to be replaced must signal replaceability.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: Package RBF signaling logic should be the same for
>>>>> package RBF and
>>>>> single transaction acceptance. This would be updated if single
>>>>> transaction
>>>>> validation moves to full RBF.
>>>>>
>>>>> ##### New Unconfirmed Inputs (Rule #2)
>>>>>
>>>>> A package may include new unconfirmed inputs, but the ancestor feerate
>>>>> of the
>>>>> child must be at least as high as the ancestor feerates of every
>>>>> transaction
>>>>> being replaced. This is contrary to BIP125#2, which states "The
>>>>> replacement
>>>>> transaction may only include an unconfirmed input if that input was
>>>>> included in
>>>>> one of the original transactions. (An unconfirmed input spends an
>>>>> output from a
>>>>> currently-unconfirmed transaction.)"
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rationale*: The purpose of BIP125#2 is to ensure that the replacement
>>>>> transaction has a higher ancestor score than the original
>>>>> transaction(s) (see
>>>>> [comment][13]). Example H [16] shows how adding a new unconfirmed
>>>>> input can lower the
>>>>> ancestor score of the replacement transaction. P1 is trying to replace
>>>>> M1, and
>>>>> spends an unconfirmed output of M2. P1 pays 800sat, M1 pays 600sat,
>>>>> and M2 pays
>>>>> 100sat. Assume all transactions have a size of 100vB. While, in
>>>>> isolation, P1
>>>>> looks like a better mining candidate than M1, it must be mined with
>>>>> M2, so its
>>>>> ancestor feerate is actually 4.5sat/vB.  This is lower than M1's
>>>>> ancestor
>>>>> feerate, which is 6sat/vB.
>>>>>
>>>>> In package RBF, the rule analogous to BIP125#2 would be "none of the
>>>>> transactions in the package can spend new unconfirmed inputs." Example
>>>>> J [17] shows
>>>>> why, if any of the package transactions have ancestors, package
>>>>> feerate is no
>>>>> longer accurate. Even though M2 and M3 are not ancestors of P1 (which
>>>>> is the
>>>>> replacement transaction in an RBF), we're actually interested in the
>>>>> entire
>>>>> package. A miner should mine M1 which is 5sat/vB instead of M2, M3,
>>>>> P1, P2, and
>>>>> P3, which is only 4sat/vB. The Package RBF rule cannot be loosened to
>>>>> only allow
>>>>> the child to have new unconfirmed inputs, either, because it can still
>>>>> cause us
>>>>> to overestimate the package's ancestor score.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, enforcing a rule analogous to BIP125#2 would not only make
>>>>> Package RBF
>>>>> less useful, but would also break Package RBF for packages with
>>>>> parents already
>>>>> in the mempool: if a package parent has already been submitted, it
>>>>> would look
>>>>> like the child is spending a "new" unconfirmed input. In example K
>>>>> [18], we're
>>>>> looking to replace M1 with the entire package including P1, P2, and
>>>>> P3. We must
>>>>> consider the case where one of the parents is already in the mempool
>>>>> (in this
>>>>> case, P2), which means we must allow P3 to have new unconfirmed
>>>>> inputs. However,
>>>>> M2 lowers the ancestor score of P3 to 4.3sat/vB, so we should not
>>>>> replace M1
>>>>> with this package.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the package RBF rule regarding new unconfirmed inputs is less
>>>>> strict than
>>>>> BIP125#2. However, we still achieve the same goal of requiring the
>>>>> replacement
>>>>> transactions to have a ancestor score at least as high as the original
>>>>> ones. As
>>>>> a result, the entire package is required to be a higher feerate mining
>>>>> candidate
>>>>> than each of the replaced transactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another note: the [comment][13] above the BIP125#2 code in the
>>>>> original RBF
>>>>> implementation suggests that the rule was intended to be temporary.
>>>>>
>>>>> ##### Absolute Fee (Rule #3)
>>>>>
>>>>> The package must increase the absolute fee of the mempool, i.e. the
>>>>> total fees
>>>>> of the package must be higher than the absolute fees of the mempool
>>>>> transactions
>>>>> it replaces. Combined with the CPFP rule above, this differs from
>>>>> BIP125 Rule #3
>>>>> - an individual transaction in the package may have lower fees than the
>>>>>   transaction(s) it is replacing. In fact, it may have 0 fees, and the
>>>>> child
>>>>> pays for RBF.
>>>>>
>>>>> ##### Feerate (Rule #4)
>>>>>
>>>>> The package must pay for its own bandwidth; the package feerate must
>>>>> be higher
>>>>> than the replaced transactions by at least minimum relay feerate
>>>>> (`incrementalRelayFee`). Combined with the CPFP rule above, this
>>>>> differs from
>>>>> BIP125 Rule #4 - an individual transaction in the package can have a
>>>>> lower
>>>>> feerate than the transaction(s) it is replacing. In fact, it may have
>>>>> 0 fees,
>>>>> and the child pays for RBF.
>>>>>
>>>>> ##### Total Number of Replaced Transactions (Rule #5)
>>>>>
>>>>> The package cannot replace more than 100 mempool transactions. This is
>>>>> identical
>>>>> to BIP125 Rule #5.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### Expected FAQs
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Is it possible for only some of the package to make it into the
>>>>> mempool?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Yes, it is. However, since we evict transactions from the mempool by
>>>>> descendant score and the package child is supposed to be sponsoring
>>>>> the fees of
>>>>> its parents, the most common scenario would be all-or-nothing. This is
>>>>> incentive-compatible. In fact, to be conservative, package validation
>>>>> should
>>>>> begin by trying to submit all of the transactions individually, and
>>>>> only use the
>>>>> package mempool acceptance logic if the parents fail due to low
>>>>> feerate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Should we allow packages to contain already-confirmed transactions?
>>>>>
>>>>>     No, for practical reasons. In mempool validation, we actually
>>>>> aren't able to
>>>>> tell with 100% confidence if we are looking at a transaction that has
>>>>> already
>>>>> confirmed, because we look up inputs using a UTXO set. If we have
>>>>> historical
>>>>> block data, it's possible to look for it, but this is inefficient, not
>>>>> always
>>>>> possible for pruning nodes, and unnecessary because we're not going to
>>>>> do
>>>>> anything with the transaction anyway. As such, we already have the
>>>>> expectation
>>>>> that transaction relay is somewhat "stateful" i.e. nobody should be
>>>>> relaying
>>>>> transactions that have already been confirmed. Similarly, we shouldn't
>>>>> be
>>>>> relaying packages that contain already-confirmed transactions.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22290
>>>>> [2]:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/1f0b563738199ca60d32b4ba779797fc97d040fe/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-size-calculations
>>>>> [3]:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/94f83534e4b771944af7d9ed0f40746f392eb75e/src/policy/policy.cpp#L282
>>>>> [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16400
>>>>> [5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21062
>>>>> [6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22675
>>>>> [7]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22796
>>>>> [8]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20833
>>>>> [9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21800
>>>>> [10]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16401
>>>>> [11]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19621
>>>>> [12]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki
>>>>> [13]:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871/files#diff-34d21af3c614ea3cee120df276c9c4ae95053830d7f1d3deaf009a4625409ad2R1101-R1104
>>>>> [14]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567078-075a971c-0619-4339-9168-b41fd2b90c28.png
>>>>> [15]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132856734-fc17da75-f875-44bb-b954-cb7a1725cc0d.png
>>>>> [16]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567347-a3e2e4a8-ae9c-49f8-abb9-81e8e0aba224.png
>>>>> [17]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567370-21566d0e-36c8-4831-b1a8-706634540af3.png
>>>>> [18]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133567444-bfff1142-439f-4547-800a-2ba2b0242bcb.png
>>>>> [19]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/133456219-0bb447cb-dcb4-4a31-b9c1-7d86205b68bc.png
>>>>> [20]:
>>>>> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/132857787-7b7c6f56-af96-44c8-8d78-983719888c19.png
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>