From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:39:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0PHT6SPi9u4o59TMy1XTpqM+2QQYAD4YXg=izDU=vet6A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13032 bytes --]
This is very disappointing. "scorched earth" replace-by-fee implemented
first at a pool, without updating wallets and merchants, is very
anti-social and increases the ability to perform Finney attacks and
double-spends.
The community is progressing more towards a safer replace-by-fee model, as
indicated by the following code change:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6176
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing
> power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with
> me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will be replaced if a
> conflicting transaction pays a higher fee. There are no requirements for
> the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the
> previous transaction.
>
>
> I'm a user. What does this mean for me?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> In the short term, very little. Wallet software aimed at average users
> has no ability to reliably detect conditions where an unconfirmed
> transaction may be double-spent by the sender. For example, Schildbach's
> Bitcoin Wallet for Android doesn't even detect double-spends of
> unconfirmed transactions when connected to a RBF or Bitcoin XT nodes
> that propagate them. The least sophisticated double-spend attack
> possibly - simply broadcasting two conflicting transactions at the same
> time - has about 50% probability of success against these wallets.
>
> Additionally, SPV wallets based on bitcoinj can't even detect invalid
> transactions reliably, instead trusting the full node(s) it is connected
> too over the unauthenticated, unencrypted, P2P protocol to do validation
> for them. For instance due to a unfixed bug¹ Bitcoin XT nodes will relay
> double-spends that spend the output of the conflicting transaction. I've
> personally tested this with Schildbach's Bitcoin Wallet for Android,
> which shows such invalid transactions as standard, unconfirmed,
> transactions.
>
> Users should continue to assume that unconfirmed transactions could be
> trivially reversed by the sender until the first confirmation. In
> general, only the sender can reverse a transaction, so if you do trust
> the sender feel free to assume an unconfirmed transaction will
> eventually confirm. However, if you do not trust the sender and/or have
> no other recourse if they double-spend you, wait until at least the
> first confirmation before assuming the transaction will go through.
>
> In the long term, miner support of full RBF has a number of advantages
> to users, allowing you to more efficiently make transactions, paying
> lower fees. However you'll need a wallet supporting these features; none
> exist yet.
>
>
> I'm a business. What does this mean for me?
> -------------------------------------------
>
> If you use your own node to verify transactions, you probably are in a
> similar situation as average users, so again, this means very little to
> you.
>
> If you use a payment processor/transaction API such as BitPay, Coinbase,
> BlockCypher, etc. you may or may not be accepting unconfirmed
> transactions, and they may or may not be "guaranteed" by your payment
> processor even if double-spent. If like most merchants you're using the
> API such that confirmations are required prior to accepting orders (e.g.
> taking a meaningful loss such as shipping a product if the tx is
> reversed) nothing changes for you. If not I recommend you contact your
> payment processor.
>
>
> I'm a miner. Why should I support replace-by-fee?
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Whether full or first-seen-safe⁵ RBF support (along with
> child-pays-for-parent) is an important step towards a fully functioning
> transaction fee market that doesn't lead to users' transactions getting
> mysteriously "stuck", particularly during network flooding
> events/attacks. A better functioning fee market will help reduce
> pressure to increase the blocksize, particularly from the users creating
> the most valuable transactions.
>
> Full RBF also helps make use of the limited blockchain space more
> efficiently, with up to 90%+ transaction size savings possible in some
> transaction patterns. (e.g. long payment chains⁶) More users in less
> blockchain space will lead to higher overall fees per block.
>
> Finally as we'll discuss below full RBF prevents a number of serious
> threats to the existing level playing field that miners operate in.
>
>
> Why can't we make accepting unconfirmed txs from untrusted people safe?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a decentralized wallet, the situation is pretty bleak. These wallets
> only have a handful of connections to the network, with no way of
> knowing if those connections give an accurate view of what transactions
> miners actually know about.
>
> The only serious attempt to fix this problem for decentralized wallets
> that has been actually deployed is Andresen/Harding's double-spend
> relaying, implemented in Bitcoin XT. It relays up to one double-spend
> transaction per double-spent txout, with the intended effect to warn
> recipients. In practice however this functionality makes it easier to
> double-spend rather than harder, by giving an efficient and easy way to
> get double-spends to miners after the fact. Notably my RBF
> implementation even connects to Bitcoin XT nodes, reserving a % of all
> incoming and outgoing connection slots for them.
>
> Additionally Bitcoin XT's double-spend relaying is subject to attacks
> include bandwidth exhaustion, sybil attacks, and Gervais's non-sybil
> interactive attacks⁷ among many others.
>
>
> What about centralised wallets?
> -------------------------------
>
> Here the solutions being deployed, planned, and proposed are harmful,
> and even represent serious threats to Bitcoin's decentralization.
>
>
> Confidence factors
> ------------------
>
> Many services such as BlockCypher² have attempted to predict the
> probability that unconfirmed transactions will be mined, often
> guaranteeing merchants payment³ even in the event of a double-spend. The
> key component of these predictions is to sybil attack the P2P network as
> a whole, connecting to as many nodes as possible to measure transaction
> propagation. Additionally these services connect to pools directly via
> the getblocktemplate protocol, repeatedly downloading via GBT the lists
> of transactions in the to-be-mined blocks to determine what transactions
> miners are attempting to mine.
>
> None of these measures scale, wasting significant network and miner
> resources; in one instance a sybil attack by Chainalysis even completely
> blocked the users of the SPV wallet Breadwallet⁴ from accessing the
> network. These measures also don't work very well, giving double-spend
> attackers incentives to sybil attack miners themselves.
>
>
> Transaction processing contracts with miners
> --------------------------------------------
>
> The next step after measuring propagation fails is to contract with
> miners directly, signing contracts with as much of the hashing power as
> possible to get the transactions they want mined and double-spends
> rejected. The miners/pools would then provide an authenticated API
> endpoint for exclusive use of this service that would allow the service
> to add and remove specific transactions to the mempool on demand.
>
> There's a number of serious problems with this:
>
> 1) Mining contracts can be used to double-spend
>
> ...even when they're being used "honestly".
>
> Suppose Alice is a merchant using CoinPayCypher, who has contracts with
> 75% of the hashing power. Bob, another merchant, meanwhile uses a
> decentralized Bitcoin Core backend for payments to his website.
>
> Mallory wants to double-spend Bob's to buy his expensive products. He
> can do this by creating a transaction, tx1, that pays Alice, followed by
> a second transaction, tx2, that pays Bob. In any circumstance when
> Mallory can convince Bob to accept tx2, but prevent Bob from seeing tx1,
> the chance of Malory's double-spend succeeding becomes ~75% because
> CoinPayCypher's contracts with mining ensure the transaction paying
> Alice will get mined.
>
> Of course, dishonest use and/or compromise makes double-spending
> trivial: Malory can use the API credentials to ask miners to reject
> Bob's payment at any time.
>
>
> 2) They still don't work, without 51% attacking other miners
>
> Even if CoinPayCypher has 75% of the hashing power on contract, that's
> still a potentially 75% chance of being double-spent. The 25% of miners
> who haven't signed contracts have no _decentralized_ way of ensuring
> they don't create blocks with double-spends, let alone at low cost. If
> those miners won't or can't sign contracts with CoinPayCypher the only
> next step available is to reject their blocks entirely.
>
>
> 3) Legal contracts give the advantage to non-anonymous miners in
> Western jurisdictions
>
> Suppose CoinPayCypher is a US company, and you're a miner with 1%
> hashing power located in northern China. The barriers to you succesfully
> negotiating a contract with CoinPayCypher are significant. You don't
> speak the same langauge, you're in a completely different jurisdiction
> so enforcing the legal contract is difficult, and being just 1%,
> CoinPayCypher sees you as insignificant.
>
> Who's going to get the profitable hashing power contracts first, if at
> all? Your English speaking competitors in the west. This is inherently a
> pressure towards centralization of mining.
>
>
> Why isn't this being announced on the bitcoin-security list first?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've had repeated discussions with services vulnerable to double-spends;
> they have been made well aware of the risk they're taking. If they've
> followed my own and others' advice they'll at minimum have constant
> monitoring of the rate of double-spends both on their own services and
> on the P2P network in general.
>
> If you choose to take a risk you should accept the consequences.
>
>
> How do I actually use full RBF?
> -------------------------------
>
> First get the full-RBF patch to v0.10.2:
>
> https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/replace-by-fee-v0.10.2
>
> The above implementation of RBF includes additional code to find and
> preferentially connect to other RBF nodes, as well as Bitcoin XT nodes.
> Secondly, try out my replace-by-fee-tools at:
>
> https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools
>
> You can watch double-spends on the network here:
>
> http://respends.thinlink.com/
>
>
> References
> ----------
>
> 1) "Replace-by-fee v0.10.2 - Serious DoS attack fixed! - Also novel
> variants of existing attacks w/ Bitcoin XT and Android Bitcoin Wallet",
> Peter Todd, May 23rd 2015, Bitcoin-development mailing list,
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07795.html
>
> 2) "From Zero to Hero: Bitcoin Transactions in 8 Seconds",
> June 2nd, 2014, Erik Voorhees,
>
> https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/from-zero-to-hero-bitcoin-transactions-in-8-seconds-7c9edcb3b734
>
> 3) Coinbase Merchant API, Accessed Jun 19th 2015,
> https://developers.coinbase.com/docs/merchants/callbacks#confirmations
>
> 4) "Chainalysis CEO Denies 'Sybil Attack' on Bitcoin's Network",
> March 14th 2015, Grace Caffyn, Coindesk,
>
> http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/
>
> 5) "First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee",
> May 25th 2015, Peter Todd, Bitcoin-development mailing list,
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg07829.html
>
> 6) "Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%",
> May 25th 2015, Peter Todd, Bitcoin-development mailing list,
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07813.html
>
> 7) "Tampering with the Delivery of Blocks and Transactions in Bitcoin",
> Arthur Gervais and Hubert Ritzdorf and Ghassan O. Karame and Srdjan
> Capkun,
> Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2015/578, Jun 10th 2015,
> http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/578
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000070a2bb3b92c20d5c2c971e6e1a7abe55cdbbe6a2dd9a5ad
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15893 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-19 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-19 10:39 Peter Todd
2015-06-19 13:33 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-19 13:52 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:00 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 14:08 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:30 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 14:59 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:20 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 15:40 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 16:18 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 16:37 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 20:39 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 21:05 ` Frank Flores
2015-06-19 21:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-20 0:47 ` Andreas Petersson
2015-06-20 1:09 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-20 1:23 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-20 3:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 3:48 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-20 4:02 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 16:43 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-20 17:38 ` Cameron Hejazi
2015-06-19 14:40 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 15:22 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 13:33 ` Stephen Morse
2015-06-19 13:37 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 13:48 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:16 ` Lawrence Nahum
2015-06-19 13:40 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 13:44 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 13:52 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 15:43 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 19:49 ` Jeffrey Paul
2015-06-19 15:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 16:15 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:00 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 15:11 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 15:53 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 16:36 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 16:42 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 16:46 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 16:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 16:54 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:00 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-20 23:20 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-20 23:37 ` justusranvier
2015-06-21 0:19 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 0:27 ` justusranvier
2015-06-21 0:36 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 0:54 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 5:56 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-21 6:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-21 7:42 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 8:35 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 8:41 ` Btc Drak
2015-06-21 8:51 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 19:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-21 18:23 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-19 16:44 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 17:48 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 18:00 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 16:50 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-19 16:41 ` [Bitcoin-development] Remove Us Please Gigas Gaming Inc.
2015-06-19 18:34 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-19 19:55 ` John Bodeen
2015-06-19 20:01 ` Brian Hoffman
2015-06-19 20:27 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-20 23:16 ` [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee Jorge Timón
2015-06-20 23:47 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 23:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 23:56 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 15:39 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 15:39 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2015-06-20 20:04 ` odinn
2015-06-21 2:11 ` Dario Sneidermanis
2015-06-21 2:23 ` Dario Sneidermanis
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='CAJHLa0PHT6SPi9u4o59TMy1XTpqM+2QQYAD4YXg=izDU=vet6A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jgarzik@bitpay$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--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