From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 08:29:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhjR06Lp3ka-MqZQE64tfE5uDQB6TrMh06khjYrDzuT95g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YhC6yjoe3bAfBS+W@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4451 bytes --]
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 1:39 AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:38:27PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> > > As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types
> > of pinning attack.
> >
> > I think pinning is "formally defined" as sequences of transactions which
> > prevent or make it less likely for you to make any progress (in terms of
> > units of computation proceeding).
>
> Mentioning "computation" when talking about transactions is misleading:
> blockchain transactions have nothing to do with computation.
>
It is in fact computation. Branding it as "misleading" is misleading... The
relevant literature is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm,
sponsors helps get rid of deadlocking so that any thread can be guaranteed
to make progress. E.g., this is critical in Eltoo, which is effectively a
coordinated multi-party computation on-chain to compute the highest
sequence number known by any worker.
That transactions are blobs of "verification" (which is also itself a
computation) less so than dynamic computations is irrelevant to the fact
that series of transactions do represent computations.
> > Something that only increases possibility to make progress cannot be
> > pinning.
>
> It is incorrect to say that all use-cases have the property that any
> version of
> a transaction being mined is progress.
>
It is progress, tautologically. Progress is formally definable as a
transaction of any kind getting mined. Pinning prevents progress by an
adversarial worker. Sponsoring enables progress, but it may not be your
preferred interleaving. That's OK, but it's inaccurate to say it is not
progress.
Your understanding of how OpenTimestamps calendars work appears to be
> incorrect. There is no chain of unconfirmed transactions. Rather, OTS
> calendars
> use RBF to _update_ the timestamp tx with a new merkle tip hash for to all
> outstanding per-second commitments once per new block. In high fee
> situations
> it's normal for there to be dozens of versions of that same tx, each with a
> slightly higher feerate.
>
I didn't claim there to be a chain of unconfirmed, I claimed that there
could be single output chain that you're RBF'ing one step per block.
E.g., it could be something like
A_0 -> {A_1 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {blah, foo}}
A_1 -> {A_2 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {bar}}
such that A_i provably can't have an unconfirmed descendant. The notion
would be that you're replacing one with another. E.g., if you're updating
the calendar like:
Version 0: A_0 -> {A_1 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {blah, foo}}
Version 1: A_0 -> {A_1 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {blah, foo, bar}}
Version 2: A_0 -> {A_1 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {blah, foo, bar, delta}}
and version 1 gets mined, then in A_1's spend you simply shift delta to
that (next) calendar.
A_1 -> {A_2 w/ CSV 1 block, OP_RETURN {delta}}
Thus my claim that someone sponsoring a old version only can delay by 1
block the calendar commit.
> OTS calendars can handle any of those versions getting mined. But older
> versions getting mined wastes money, as the remaining commitments still
> need to
> get mined in a subsequent transaction. Those remaining commitments are also
> delayed by the time it takes for the next tx to get mined.
>
> There are many use-cases beyond OTS with this issue. For example, some
> entities
> use "in-place" replacement for update low-time-preference settlement
> transactions by adding new txouts and updating existing ones. Older
> versions of
> those settlement transactions getting mined rather than the newer version
> wastes money and delays settlement for the exact same reason it does in
> OTS.
>
>
> > Lastly, if you do get "necromanced" on an earlier RBF'd transaction by a
> > third party for OTS, you should be relatively happy because it cost you
> > less fees overall, since the undoing of your later RBF surely returned
> some
> > satoshis to your wallet.
>
> As I said above, no it doesn't.
>
>
It does save money since you had to pay to RBF, the N+1st txn will be
paying higher fee than the Nth. So if someone else sponsors an earlier
version, then you save whatever feerate/fee bumps you would have paid and
the funds are again in your change output (or something). You can apply
those change output savings to your next batch, which can include any
entries that have been dropped .
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9050 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-20 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-01 20:04 Jeremy
2022-01-18 16:12 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-18 17:43 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 2:37 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 2:51 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 4:53 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 7:32 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 16:51 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 20:08 ` Jeremy
2022-01-20 5:23 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-10 6:58 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-10 8:08 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-18 23:50 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-19 0:38 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-19 9:39 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-19 17:20 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " darosior
2022-02-19 20:35 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-20 2:24 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 2:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
[not found] ` <590cf52920040c9cf7517b219624bbb5@willtech.com.au>
2022-02-20 14:24 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 16:29 ` Jeremy Rubin
[not found] ` <CAD5xwhgEeTETburW=OBgHNe_V1kk8o06TDQLiLgdfmP2AEVuPg@mail.gmail.com>
2022-02-20 16:34 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 16:45 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-20 16:29 ` Jeremy Rubin [this message]
2022-04-10 19:32 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Peter Todd
2022-04-11 13:18 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-15 14:52 ` Peter Todd
2022-04-17 20:57 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-28 12:15 ` Peter Todd
2022-05-02 15:59 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-06-14 11:12 ` [bitcoin-dev] Why OpenTimestamps does not "linearize" its transactions Peter Todd
2022-06-14 11:39 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 11:53 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 12:28 ` rot13maxi
2022-06-14 12:45 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 13:55 ` Bryan Bishop
2022-06-14 15:06 ` digital vagabond
2022-06-14 15:34 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-14 17:15 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 20:33 ` Andrew Poelstra
2022-06-15 1:16 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-15 1:21 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-19 11:04 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-14 15:22 ` 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=CAD5xwhjR06Lp3ka-MqZQE64tfE5uDQB6TrMh06khjYrDzuT95g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jeremy.l.rubin@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=lightning-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--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