Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)

From: Moral Agent <ethan.scruples@gmail•com>
To: Rhavar <rhavar@protonmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:56:41 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACiOHGw=XUe6Fxmh8JkNPZWK1d3hWaaVPsNy1dPNoU1qULckrA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7yyS0mCgC8UWMYR_Jf1hB_GkkGj6Iu8tnIO7TeXWWyCrg9j4RZ7ziprCPZcv2xsFZdUzcFuHyeMU2-RBujzlSXdUAWlqdricuL2abaX0PWE=@protonmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4666 bytes --]

Another way to limit abuse would be to have the fee *rate* be required to
increase, which is kind of the spirit of RBF, applied to this situation.

That is to say, if you wished to replace transactions A and B with C which
spends the same inputs as A and B, then the following must be true before C
will be relayed:

(Fee_A + Fee_B) / (Weight_A + Weight_B) < Fee_C / Weight_C

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Getting back on topic:
>
>
> It would definitely introduce DoS vectors by making it much cheaper to use
> relay bandwidth.
>
>
> I think I'm missing something, as I don't really understand this DoS
> vector. Relay bandwidth is already very cheap and easy to use by repeatedly
> fee bumping. And it's not obvious to me that requiring an absolute higher
> fee actually makes such an attack more expensive.
>
> I can see that my "proposed" change would make it cheaper to evict low-fee
> transactions from other node's mempool. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't
> really see why this would be such a big deal.
>
> But what about a compromise, and require that the absolute fee must be >=
> half the original fees. I know everyone hates magic values, but I think in
> practice it will allow legitimate and useful use of "retroactive
> transaction merging" without much downside.
>
> And really the great thing about "retroactive transaction merging" is just
> how easy it is to implement. In fact, right now it's quite possible to do
> -- but because of the "higher absolute fee" rule the benefits are pretty
> muted (although if you can compress 2 change into 1, that's still likely
> worthwhile)
>
>
>
> -Ryan
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On January 22, 2018 3:00 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40:31PM -0500, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> So my half-baked idea is very simple:
> Allow users to merge multiple unconfirmed transactions, stripping
> extraneous inputs and change as they go.
> This is currently not possible because of the bip125 rule:
> "The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum paid
> by the original transactions."
> Because the size of the merged transaction is smaller than the original
> transactions, unless there is a considerable feerate bump, this rule isn't
> possible to observe.
> I my question is: is it possible or reasonable to relax this rule? If this
> rule was removed in its entirety, does it introduce any DoS vectors? Or can
> it be changed to allow my use-case?
>
>
> It would definitely introduce DoS vectors by making it much cheaper to use
> relay bandwidth. You'd also be able to push others' txs out of the mempool.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Full backstory: I have been trying to use bip125 (Opt-in Full
> Replace-by-Fee) to do "transaction merging" on the fly. Let's say that I
> owe John 1 bitcoin, and have promised to pay him immediately: Instead of
> creating a whole new transaction if I have an in-flight (unconfirmed)
> transaction, I can follow the rules of bip125 to create a replacement that
> accomplishes this goal.
> From a "coin selection" point of view, this was significantly easier than
> I had anticipated. I was able to encode the rules in my linear model and
> feed in all my unspent and in-flight transactions and it can solve it
> without difficulty.
> However, the real problem is tracking the mess. Consider this sequence of
> events:
>
>    1. I have unconfirmed transaction A
>    2. I replace it with B, which pays John 1 BTC
>    3. Transaction A gets confirmed
>
> So now I still owe John 1 BTC, however it's not immediately clear if
> it's safe to send to him without waiting $n transactions. However even
> for a small $n, this breaks my promise to pay him immediately.
> One possible solution is to only consider a transaction "replaceable" if
> it has change, so if the original transaction confirms -- payments can
> immediately be made that source the change, and provide safety in a reorg.
> However, this will only work <50% of the time for me (most transactions
> don't have change) and opens a pandora's box of complexity.
>
>
> Most transactions don't have change?! Under what circumstance? For most
> use-cases the reverse is true: almost all all transactions have change,
> because
> it's rare for the inputs to exactly math the requested payment.
>
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6951 bytes --]