From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:27:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhiwhCEZdpfXc9Z1kePaoSc7qAoin6Sz3zdRWWr67zNm3g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200921145221.76bg5rnw7ohkm3ck@ganymede>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2799 bytes --]
Responses Inline:
Would it make sense that, instead of sponsor vectors
> pointing to txids, they point to input outpoints? E.g.:
>
> 1. Alice and Bob open a channel with funding transaction 0123...cdef,
> output 0.
>
> 2. After a bunch of state updates, Alice unilaterally broadcasts a
> commitment transaction, which has a minimal fee.
>
> 3. Bob doesn't immediately care whether or not Alice tried to close the
> channel in the latest state---he just wants the commitment
> transaction confirmed so that he either gets his money directly or he
> can send any necessary penalty transactions. So Bob broadcasts a
> sponsor transaction with a vector of 0123...cdef:0
>
> 4. Miners can include that sponsor transaction in any block that has a
> transaction with an input of 0123...cdef:0. Otherwise the sponsor
> transaction is consensus invalid.
>
> (Note: alternatively, sponsor vectors could point to either txids OR
> input outpoints. This complicates the serialization of the vector but
> seems otherwise fine to me.)
>
*This seems like a fine suggestion and I think addresses Antoine's issue.*
*I think there are likely some cases where you do want TXID and not Output
(e.g., if you *
*are sponsoring a payment to your locktime'd cold storage wallet (no CPFP)
from an untrusted third party (no RBF), they can grift you into paying for
an unrelated payment). This isn't a concern when the root utxo is multisig
& you are a participant.*
*The serialization to support both, while slightly more complicated, can be
done in a manner that permits future extensibility as well if there are
other modes people require.*
>
> > If we want to solve the hard cases of pinning, I still think mempool
> > acceptance of a whole package only on the merits of feerate is the
> easiest
> > solution to reason on.
>
> I don't think package relay based only on feerate solves RBF transaction
> pinning (and maybe also doesn't solve ancestor/dependent limit pinning).
> Though, certainly, package relay has the major advantage over this
> proposal (IMO) in that it doesn't require any consensus changes.
> Package relay is also very nice for fixing other protocol rough edges
> that are needed anyway.
>
> -Dave
>
*I think it's important to keep in mind this is not a rival to package
relay; I think you also want package relay in addition to this, as they
solve different but related problems.*
*Where you might be able to simplify package relay with sponsors is by
doing a sponsor-only package relay, which is always limited to 2
transactions, 1 sponsor, 1 sponsoree. This would not have some of the
challenges with arbitrary-package package-relay, and would (at least from a
ux perspective) allow users to successfully get parents with insufficient
fee into the mempool.*
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5016 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-19 0:51 Jeremy
2020-09-19 1:39 ` Cory Fields
2020-09-19 16:16 ` Jeremy
2020-09-19 13:37 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-19 15:01 ` nopara73
2020-09-19 16:30 ` Jeremy
2020-09-19 17:24 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-19 18:39 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-19 19:13 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-19 19:46 ` Jeremy
2020-09-20 23:10 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-21 14:52 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-21 16:27 ` Jeremy [this message]
2020-09-21 23:40 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-22 18:05 ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-09-23 22:10 ` Jeremy
2020-09-24 4:22 ` Dmitry Petukhov
2020-09-22 6:24 ArmchairCryptologist
2020-09-22 13:52 ` Antoine Riard
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=CAD5xwhiwhCEZdpfXc9Z1kePaoSc7qAoin6Sz3zdRWWr67zNm3g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dave@dtrt$(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