(To everyone):
I should have made it much clearer that version 1 is only supposed to solve
1 of the 2 use cases. I was a lot more focused on the fee-bumping use case,
since it’s more important. Orphan-fetching was added to the motivation
section last-minute because John Newbery mentioned to me “hey you could
deal with orphans really easily with this.” Of course,
child-with-unconfirmed-parents packages aren’t very useful for
orphan-fetching since non-parent ancestors are quite common.

Maybe a version 2 package for orphan-fetching could look like this:

“pckginfo2” message contains a tx with all of its ancestors

“MSG_PCKG2” inv type refers to a “pckginfo2” for a tx. You don’t send
inv(MSG_PCKG2), but a node can request getdata(MSG_PCKG2) for a transaction
they want the ancestors for, provided they sent sendpackages(version=2)
ahead of time. It seems to me that orphan-fetching only ever needs to be
receiver-initiated.

Protocol flow would look like this:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25183001/168891185-1630f583-de47-4937-86b1-2652cf8852f2.png

We don’t have a policy for dealing with anything more than a child with its
direct parents, but I also don’t think anybody is relying on fee-bumping
more than 2 generations, so the validation logic here could probably just
submit them all individually. Maybe they can request a pckginfo1 if they
see something that’s too-low-fee, and/or use the
child-with-unconfirmed-parents logic opportunistically.

Thanks aj for the feedback! Responding:

> The "PCKG" abbreviation threw me for a loop; isn't the usual
> abbreviation "PKG" ?

Oh I didn't know that. I could change it if people feel strongly.

> Does it make sense for these to be configurable, rather than implied
> by the version?
> … would it be better to either just not do sendpackages
> at all if you're limiting ancestors in the mempool incompatibly

Effectively: if you’re setting your ancestor/descendant limits lower than
the default, you can’t do package relay. I wonder if this might be
controversial, since it adds pressure to adhere to Bitcoin Core’s current
mempool policy? I would be happy to do it this way, though - makes things
easier to implement.

> > 5. If 'fRelay==false' in a peer's version message, the node must not
> >    send "sendpackages" to them. If a "sendpackages" message is
> > received by a peer after sending `fRelay==false` in their version
> > message, the sender should be disconnected.

> Seems better to just say "if you set fRelay=false in your version
> message, you must not send sendpackages"? You already won't do packages
> with the peer if they don't also announce sendpackages.

I guess, theoretically, if you allow bloom filters with this peer, it’s
plausible they’re saying “fRelay=false, I’ll send you a bloom filter later,
and I’ll also want to talk about packages.”
I don’t know if that’s a use case we want to support - my gut reaction is
no.

> Maybe: "You must not send sendpackages unless you also send wtxidrelay" ?

Do you mean if we get a verack, and the peer sent “sendpackages” but not
“wtxidrelay,” we should disconnect them?

> As I understand it, the two cases for the protocol flow are "I received
> an orphan, and I'd like its ancestors please" which seems simple enough,
> and "here's a child you may be interested in, even though you possibly
> weren't interested in the parents of that child".

(Btw, please see my notes at the top of this email about separating those
two use cases. sorry for the confusion).

> I think the logic for the latter is: […]

I have it as: we send a PCKG INV when this transaction’s feerate is above
the fee filter, but one or more of its parents don’t. I don’t think using
ancestor feerate is better.
See this counterexample:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/glozow/bitcoin-notes/master/mempool_garden/abc_1parent_2kids.png
A (0fee) has 2 kids, B (3sat/vB) and C (20sat/vB), everything’s the same
vsize. Let’s say the fee filter is 3sat/vB.
If we do it based on ancestor feerate, we won’t send B. But B is actually
fine; C is paying for A.

> Are "getpckgtxns" / "pcktxns" really limited to packages, or are they
> just a general way to request a batch of transactions?

> Maybe call those messages "getbatchtxns" and "batchtxns" and allow them to
> be used more generally, potentially in ways unrelated to packages/cpfp?

Indeed, it’s a general way to request a batch of transactions. I’ll
highlight that it is “all or nothing,” i.e. if the sender is missing any of
them, they’ll just send a notfound.
The idea here was to avoid downloading any transactions that can’t be
validated right away. With packages, this makes sense, because there are
dependency relationships. But if you’re requesting multiple unrelated
transactions, for example, it’s unnecessary. You might end up with even
more transaction data that’s just sitting around waiting to be validated.

> The "only be sent if both peers agreed to do package relay" rule could
> simply be dropped, I think.

Wouldn’t we need some way of saying “hey I support batchtxns?” Otherwise
you would have to guess by sending a request and waiting to see if it’s
ignored?

> Shouldn't the sender only be sending package announcements when they know
> the recipient will be interested in the package, based on their feefilter?

I think there are cases where the sender doesn’t necessarily know.
Consider this example:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/glozow/bitcoin-notes/master/mempool_garden/rich_parent_bad_cpfp.png
D (5sat/vB) has 2 parents, A (0sat/vB) and B (20sat/vB). All same size.
Feefilter is 3sat/vB.
If the receiver already has B, they’ll know they can just reject the
package already based on the pckginfo.
But the sender doesn’t really know that. The sender just knows A is below
feerate and D is above. D is above the fee filter, and its ancestor feerate
is above the fee filter.

> CAmount in consensus/amount.h is a int64_t
> The maximum block weight is 4M…

 Oops yes. I think we just usually use int64_t for vsizes afaik. Agree that
it should be 8 bytes for fee, and 4 bytes is enough for vsize.

> I guess tx relay is low priority enough that it wouldn't be worth tagging
> some peers as "high bandwidth" and having them immediately announce the
> PCKGINFO1 message, and skip the INV/GETDATA step?

I had the same idea as well, but seemed unnecessary. It would reduce the
number of round trips, but I don’t think an extra round trip is that big of
a deal for transaction relay. Block relay, yes of course, but I don’t think
we care that much if it takes an extra second to send a transaction?

Best,
Gloria

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:35 PM Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:01:04PM -0400, Gloria Zhao via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > ====New Messages====
> > Three new protocol messages are added for use in any version of
> > package relay. Additionally, each version of package relay must define
> > its own inv type and "pckginfo" message version, referred to in this
> > document as "MSG_PCKG" and "pckginfo" respectively. See
> > BIP-v1-packages for a concrete example.
>
> The "PCKG" abbreviation threw me for a loop; isn't the usual
> abbreviation "PKG" ?
>
> > =====sendpackages=====
> > |version || uint32_t || 4 || Denotes a package version supported by the
> > node.
> > |max_count || uint32_t || 4 ||Specifies the maximum number of
> transactions
> > per package this node is
> > willing to accept.
> > |max_weight || uint32_t || 4 ||Specifies the maximum total weight per
> > package this node is willing
> > to accept.
>
> Does it make sense for these to be configurable, rather than implied
> by the version?
>
> I presume the idea is to cope with people specifying different values for
> -limitancestorcount or -limitancestorsize, but if people are regularly
> relaying packages around, it seems like it becomes hard to have those
> values really be configurable while being compatible with that?
>
> I guess I'm asking: would it be better to either just not do sendpackages
> at all if you're limiting ancestors in the mempool incompatibly; or
> alternatively, would it be better to do the package relay, then reject
> the particular package if it turns out too big, and log that you've
> dropped it so that the node operator has some way of realising "whoops,
> I'm not relaying packages properly because of how I configured my node"?
>
> > 5. If 'fRelay==false' in a peer's version message, the node must not
> >    send "sendpackages" to them. If a "sendpackages" message is
> > received by a peer after sending `fRelay==false` in their version
> > message, the sender should be disconnected.
>
> Seems better to just say "if you set fRelay=false in your version
> message, you must not send sendpackages"? You already won't do packages
> with the peer if they don't also announce sendpackages.
>
> > 7. If both peers send "wtxidrelay" and "sendpackages" with the same
> >    version, the peers should announce, request, and send package
> > information to each other.
>
> Maybe: "You must not send sendpackages unless you also send wtxidrelay" ?
>
>
> As I understand it, the two cases for the protocol flow are "I received
> an orphan, and I'd like its ancestors please" which seems simple enough,
> and "here's a child you may be interested in, even though you possibly
> weren't interested in the parents of that child". I think the logic for
> the latter is:
>
>  * if tx C's fee rate is less than the peer's feefilter, skip it
>    (will maybe treat it as a parent in some package later though)
>  * if tx C's ancestor fee rate is less than the peer's feefilter, skip
>    it?
>  * look at the lowest ancestor fee rate for any of C's in-mempool
>    parents
>  * if that is higher than the peer's fee filter, send a normal INV
>  * if it's lower than the peer's fee filter, send a PCKG INV
>
> Are "getpckgtxns" / "pcktxns" really limited to packages, or are they
> just a general way to request a batch of transactions? Particularly in
> the case of requesting the parents of an orphan tx you already have,
> it seems hard for the node receiving getpckgtxns to validate that the
> txs are related in some way; but also it doesn't seem very necessary?
>
> Maybe call those messages "getbatchtxns" and "batchtxns" and allow them to
> be used more generally, potentially in ways unrelated to packages/cpfp?
> The "only be sent if both peers agreed to do package relay" rule could
> simply be dropped, I think.
>
> > 4. The reciever uses the package information to decide how to request
> >    the transactions. For example, if the receiver already has some of
> > the transactions in their mempool, they only request the missing ones.
> > They could also decide not to request the package at all based on the
> > fee information provided.
>
> Shouldn't the sender only be sending package announcements when they know
> the recipient will be interested in the package, based on their feefilter?
>
> > =====pckginfo1=====
> > {|
> > |  Field Name  ||  Type  ||  Size  ||   Purpose
> > |-
> > |blockhash || uint256 || 32 || The chain tip at which this package is
> > defined.
> > |-
> > |pckg_fee||CAmount||4|| The sum total fees paid by all transactions in
> the
> > package.
>
> CAmount in consensus/amount.h is a int64_t so shouldn't this be 8
> bytes? If you limit a package to 101kvB, an int32_t is enough to cover
> any package with a fee rate of about 212 BTC/block or lower, though.
>
> > |pckg_weight||int64_t||8|| The sum total weight of all transactions in
> the
> > package.
>
> The maximum block weight is 4M, and the default -limitancestorsize
> presumably implies a max package weight of 404k; seems odd to provide
> a uint64_t rather than an int32_t here, which easily allows either of
> those values?
>
> > 2. ''Only 1 child with unconfirmed parents.'' The package must consist
> >    of one transaction and its unconfirmed parents. There must not be
> > any other transactions in the package. Other dependency relationships
> > may exist within the package (e.g. one parent may spend the output of
> > another parent) provided that topological order is respected.
>
> I think this means that some of the parents could also have unconfirmed
> parents, but they won't be included in the package, and must be requested
> via the recipient-initiated approach?
>
> > 5. ''Total fees and weight.'' The 'total_fee' and 'total_weight'
> >    fields must accurately represent the sum total of all transactions'
> >    fees and weights as defined in BIP141, respectively.
>
> Presumably this excludes any unconfirmed grandparents and earlier
> ancestors since they aren't part of the package, in this approach? Doesn't
> that make this both harder to calculate (assuming we already have
> ancestor summaries) and less useful, in the case where those ancestors
> have a lower fee rate?
>
> > ''Q: Can "getpckgtxns" and "pckgtxns" messages contain only one
> > transaction?''
> > Yes.
>
> This would be normal if you're requesting a single missing parent for
> an orphan you've received, I think?
>
> I'm slightly surprised the process is:
>
>  ->  INV PCKG1 C
>   <- GETDATA PCKG1 C
>  ->  PCKGINFO1 blockhash A B C fee weight
>
> rather than announcing the package fee info in the first message.
> But if the sender is already applying the feefilter to the package before
> announcing it, it probably doesn't matter, and means you're only getting
> a 32B INV from every peer, rather than a 32*(n+2) PCKGINFO1 message from
> every peer.
>
> I guess tx relay is low priority enough that it wouldn't be worth tagging
> some peers as "high bandwidth" and having them immediately announce the
> PCKGINFO1 message, and skip the INV/GETDATA step?
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
>