|
|
|
# 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. BIP125 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.
|