📅 Original date posted:2019-06-03
📝 Original message:Hi Rusty,
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The new "emergency RBF" rule:
>
> 6. If the original transaction was not in the first 4,000,000 weight
> units of the fee-ordered mempool and the replacement transaction is,
> rules 3, 4 and 5 do not apply.
>
> This means:
>
> 3. This proposal does not open any significant new ability to RBF spam,
> since it can (usually) only be used once. IIUC bitcoind won't
> accept more that 100 descendents of an unconfirmed tx anyway.
>
Is it not possible for Alice to grief Bob's node by alternating RBFing two
transactions, each one placing itself at the bottom of Bob's top 4,000,000
weight mempool which pushes the other one below the top 4,000,000 weight,
and then repeating with the other transaction? It might be possible to
amend this proposal to partially mitigate this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190603/66962193/attachment.html>;
Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dw…8plrw
2023-06-07 18:18:33
in reply to nevent1q…2pah
Author Public Key
npub1dw88wd5gqsqn6ufxhf9h03uk8087l7gfzdtez5csjlt6pupu4pwsj8plrwPublished at
2023-06-07 18:18:33Event JSON
{
"id": "d5bac3372dd3b42bb49dd5979ecb3cd40a39ac3932b130ceeb8eecfe74658c84",
"pubkey": "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d",
"created_at": 1686161913,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4ed6b3bfac83a99a462d959ed4b694df66ad2dfbc9892c6468b3b5ef5318cefd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"99979ea8beaa8db45954f9522c6082681684bf5bc70b06b97816f02a763d3903",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-06-03\n📝 Original message:Hi Rusty,\n\nOn Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e The new \"emergency RBF\" rule:\n\u003e\n\u003e 6. If the original transaction was not in the first 4,000,000 weight\n\u003e units of the fee-ordered mempool and the replacement transaction is,\n\u003e rules 3, 4 and 5 do not apply.\n\u003e\n\u003e This means:\n\u003e\n\u003e 3. This proposal does not open any significant new ability to RBF spam,\n\u003e since it can (usually) only be used once. IIUC bitcoind won't\n\u003e accept more that 100 descendents of an unconfirmed tx anyway.\n\u003e\n\nIs it not possible for Alice to grief Bob's node by alternating RBFing two\ntransactions, each one placing itself at the bottom of Bob's top 4,000,000\nweight mempool which pushes the other one below the top 4,000,000 weight,\nand then repeating with the other transaction? It might be possible to\namend this proposal to partially mitigate this.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190603/66962193/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "502a63aab6f7550c6def1a3e3a7e60a36a927cf191e1cd47e322269c070deee7e3ecf20a8ca567160df535925d045b27ce003a28646642f93f852a6de2543dd9"
}