[bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] CPFP Carve-Out for Fee-Prediction Issues in Contracting Applications (eg Lightning)
rusty at rustcorp.com.au
Tue Dec 4 03:33:53 UTC 2018
Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> As an alternative proposal, at various points there have been
> discussions around solving the "RBF-pinning" problem by allowing
> transactors to mark their transactions as "likely-to-be-RBF'ed", which
> could enable a relay policy where children of such transactions would be
> rejected unless the resulting package would be "near the top of the
> mempool". This would theoretically imply such attacks are not possible
> to pull off consistently, as any "transaction-delaying" channel
> participant will have to place the package containing A at an effective
> feerate which makes confirmation to occur soon with some likelihood. It
> is, however, possible to pull off this attack with low probability in
> case of feerate spikes right after broadcast.
I like this idea.
Firstly, it's incentive-compatible: assuming blocks are full, miners
should always take a higher feerate tx if that tx would be in the
current block and the replaced txs would not.
Secondly, it reduces the problem that the current lightning proposal
adds to the UTXO set with two anyone-can-spend txs for 1000 satoshis,
which might be too small to cleanup later. This rule would allow a
simple single P2WSH(OP_TRUE) output, or, with IsStandard changed,
a literal OP_TRUE.
> Note that this clearly relies on some form of package relay, which comes
> with its own challenges, but I'll start a separate thread on that.
Could be done client-side, right? Do a quick check if this is above 250
satoshi per kweight but below minrelayfee, put it in a side-cache with a
60 second timeout sweep. If something comes in which depends on it
which is above minrelayfee, then process them as a pair.
 Miners have generally been happy with Defaults Which Are Good For The
Network, but I feel a long term development aim should to be reduce
such cases to smaller and smaller corners.
 The actual condition is subtler, but this is a clear subset AFAICT.
 For Lightning, we don't care about child-pays-for-grandparent etc.
More information about the bitcoin-dev