|
|
|
# Package Mempool Accept
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Definitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A **package** is an ordered list of transactions, representable by a connected Directed Acyclic
|
|
|
|
Graph (a directed edge exists between a transaction that spends the output of another transaction).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For every transaction `t` in a **topologically sorted** package, if any of its parents are present
|
|
|
|
in the package, they appear somewhere in the list before `t`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A **child-with-unconfirmed-parents** package is a topologically sorted package that consists of
|
|
|
|
exactly one child and all of its unconfirmed parents (no other transactions may be present).
|
|
|
|
The last transaction in the package is the child, and its package can be canonically defined based
|
|
|
|
on the current state: each of its inputs must be available in the UTXO set as of the current chain
|
|
|
|
tip or some preceding transaction in the package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Package Mempool Acceptance Rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following rules are enforced for all packages:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Packages cannot exceed `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT=25` count and `MAX_PACKAGE_SIZE=101KvB` total size
|
|
|
|
(#20833)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Rationale*: This is already enforced as mempool ancestor/descendant limits. If
|
|
|
|
transactions in a package are all related, exceeding this limit would mean that the package
|
|
|
|
can either be split up or it wouldn't pass individual mempool policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Note that, if these mempool limits change, package limits should be reconsidered. Users may
|
|
|
|
also configure their mempool limits differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Packages must be topologically sorted. (#20833)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Packages cannot have conflicting transactions, i.e. no two transactions in a package can spend
|
|
|
|
the same inputs. Packages cannot have duplicate transactions. (#20833)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* No transaction in a package can conflict with a mempool transaction. Replace By Fee is
|
|
|
|
currently disabled for packages. (#20833)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Package RBF may be enabled in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* When packages are evaluated against ancestor/descendant limits, the union of all transactions'
|
|
|
|
descendants and ancestors is considered. (#21800)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Rationale*: This is essentially a "worst case" heuristic intended for packages that are
|
|
|
|
heavily connected, i.e. some transaction in the package is the ancestor or descendant of all
|
|
|
|
the other transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following rules are only enforced for packages to be submitted to the mempool (not enforced for
|
|
|
|
test accepts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Packages must be child-with-unconfirmed-parents packages. This also means packages must contain at
|
|
|
|
least 2 transactions. (#22674)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Rationale*: This allows for fee-bumping by CPFP. Allowing multiple parents makes it possible
|
|
|
|
to fee-bump a batch of transactions. Restricting packages to a defined topology is easier to
|
|
|
|
reason about and simplifies the validation logic greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Warning: Batched fee-bumping may be unsafe for some use cases. Users and application developers
|
|
|
|
should take caution if utilizing multi-parent packages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Transactions in the package that have the same txid as another transaction already in the mempool
|
|
|
|
will be removed from the package prior to submission ("deduplication").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Rationale*: Node operators are free to set their mempool policies however they please, nodes
|
|
|
|
may receive transactions in different orders, and malicious counterparties may try to take
|
|
|
|
advantage of policy differences to pin or delay propagation of transactions. As such, it's
|
|
|
|
possible for some package transaction(s) to already be in the mempool, and there is no need to
|
|
|
|
repeat validation for those transactions or double-count them in fees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Rationale*: We want to prevent potential censorship vectors. We should not reject entire
|
|
|
|
packages because we already have one of the transactions. Also, if an attacker first broadcasts
|
|
|
|
a competing package or transaction with a mutated witness, even though the two
|
|
|
|
same-txid-different-witness transactions are conflicting and cannot replace each other, the
|
|
|
|
honest package should still be considered for acceptance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Package Fees and Feerate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Package Feerate* is the total modified fees (base fees + any fee delta from
|
|
|
|
`prioritisetransaction`) divided by the total virtual size of all transactions in the package.
|
|
|
|
If any transactions in the package are already in the mempool, they are not submitted again
|
|
|
|
("deduplicated") and are thus excluded from this calculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To meet the dynamic mempool minimum feerate, i.e., the feerate determined by the transactions
|
|
|
|
evicted when the mempool reaches capacity (not the static minimum relay feerate), the total package
|
|
|
|
feerate instead of individual feerate can be used. For example, if the mempool minimum feerate is
|
|
|
|
5sat/vB and a 1sat/vB parent transaction has a high-feerate child, it may be accepted if
|
|
|
|
submitted as a package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: This can be thought of as "CPFP within a package," solving the issue of a presigned
|
|
|
|
transaction (i.e. in which a replacement transaction with a higher fee cannot be signed) being
|
|
|
|
rejected from the mempool when transaction volume is high and the mempool minimum feerate rises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Package feerate cannot be used to meet the minimum relay feerate (`-minrelaytxfee`)
|
|
|
|
requirement. For example, if the mempool minimum feerate is 5sat/vB and the minimum relay feerate is
|
|
|
|
set to 5satvB, a 1sat/vB parent transaction with a high-feerate child will not be accepted, even if
|
|
|
|
submitted as a package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: Avoid situations in which the mempool contains non-bumped transactions below min relay
|
|
|
|
feerate (which we consider to have pay 0 fees and thus receiving free relay). While package
|
|
|
|
submission would ensure these transactions are bumped at the time of entry, it is not guaranteed
|
|
|
|
that the transaction will always be bumped. For example, a later transaction could replace the
|
|
|
|
fee-bumping child without still bumping the parent. These no-longer-bumped transactions should be
|
|
|
|
removed during a replacement, but we do not have a DoS-resistant way of removing them or enforcing a
|
|
|
|
limit on their quantity. Instead, prevent their entry into the mempool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation Note: Transactions within a package are always validated individually first, and
|
|
|
|
package validation is used for the transactions that failed. Since package feerate is only
|
|
|
|
calculated using transactions that are not in the mempool, this implementation detail affects the
|
|
|
|
outcome of package validation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: It would be incorrect to use the fees of transactions that are already in the mempool, as
|
|
|
|
we do not want a transaction's fees to be double-counted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: Packages are intended for incentive-compatible fee-bumping: transaction B is a
|
|
|
|
"legitimate" fee-bump for transaction A only if B is a descendant of A and has a *higher* feerate
|
|
|
|
than A. We want to prevent "parents pay for children" behavior; fees of parents should not help
|
|
|
|
their children, since the parents can be mined without the child. More generally, if transaction A
|
|
|
|
is not needed in order for transaction B to be mined, A's fees cannot help B. In a
|
|
|
|
child-with-parents package, simply excluding any parent transactions that meet feerate requirements
|
|
|
|
individually is sufficient to ensure this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: We must not allow a low-feerate child to prevent its parent from being accepted; fees
|
|
|
|
of children should not negatively impact their parents, since they are not necessary for the parents
|
|
|
|
to be mined. More generally, if transaction B is not needed in order for transaction A to be mined,
|
|
|
|
B's fees cannot harm A. In a child-with-parents package, simply validating parents individually
|
|
|
|
first is sufficient to ensure this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Rationale*: As a principle, we want to avoid accidentally restricting policy in order to be
|
|
|
|
backward-compatible for users and applications that rely on p2p transaction relay. Concretely,
|
|
|
|
package validation should not prevent the acceptance of a transaction that would otherwise be
|
|
|
|
policy-valid on its own. By always accepting a transaction that passes individual validation before
|
|
|
|
trying package validation, we prevent any unintentional restriction of policy.
|