94ed4fbf8e Add release note for size 2 package rbf (Greg Sanders)
afd52d8e63 doc: update package RBF comment (Greg Sanders)
6e3c4394cf mempool: Improve logging of replaced transactions (Greg Sanders)
d3466e4cc5 CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult: Check package rbf invariants (Greg Sanders)
316d7b63c9 Fuzz: pass mempool to CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult (Greg Sanders)
4d15bcf448 [test] package rbf (glozow)
dc21f61c72 [policy] package rbf (Suhas Daftuar)
5da3967815 PackageV3Checks: Relax assumptions (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Allows any 2 transaction package with no in-mempool ancestors to do package RBF when directly conflicting with other mempool clusters of size two or less.
Proposed validation steps:
1) If the transaction package is of size 1, legacy rbf rules apply.
2) Otherwise the transaction package consists of a (parent, child) pair with no other in-mempool ancestors (or descendants, obviously), so it is also going to create a cluster of size 2. If larger, fail.
3) The package rbf may not evict more than 100 transactions from the mempool(bip125 rule 5)
4) The package is a single chunk
5) Every directly conflicted mempool transaction is connected to at most 1 other in-mempool transaction (ie the cluster size of the conflict is at most 2).
6) Diagram check: We ensure that the replacement is strictly superior, improving the mempool
7) The total fee of the package, minus the total fee of what is being evicted, is at least the minrelayfee * size of the package (equivalent to bip125 rule 3 and 4)
Post-cluster mempool this will likely be expanded to general package rbf, but this is what we can safely support today.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 94ed4fbf8e
glozow:
reACK 94ed4fbf8e via range-diff
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK 94ed4fbf8e
theStack:
Code-review ACK 94ed4fbf8e
murchandamus:
utACK 94ed4fbf8e
Tree-SHA512: 9bd383e695964f362f147482bbf73b1e77c4d792bda2e91d7f30d74b3540a09146a5528baf86854a113005581e8c75f04737302517b7d5124296bd7a151e3992
In order to ensure that the change of nVersion to a uint32_t in the
previous commit has no effect, rename nVersion to version in this commit
so that reviewers can easily spot if a spot was missed or if there is a
check somewhere whose semantics have changed.
The behavior is not new, but this rule exits earlier than before.
Previously, a carve out could have been granted in PreChecks() but then
nullified in PackageMempoolChecks() when CheckPackageLimits() is called
with the default limits.
29029df5c7 [doc] v3 signaling in mempool-replacements.md (glozow)
e643ea795e [fuzz] v3 transactions and sigop-adjusted vsize (glozow)
1fd16b5c62 [functional test] v3 transaction submission (glozow)
27c8786ba9 test framework: Add and use option for tx-version in MiniWallet methods (MarcoFalke)
9a1fea55b2 [policy/validation] allow v3 transactions with certain restrictions (glozow)
eb8d5a2e7d [policy] add v3 policy rules (glozow)
9a29d470fb [rpc] return full string for package_msg and package-error (glozow)
158623b8e0 [refactor] change Workspace::m_conflicts and adjacent funcs/structs to use Txid (glozow)
Pull request description:
See #27463 for overall package relay tracking.
Delving Bitcoin discussion thread: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/v3-transaction-policy-for-anti-pinning/340
Delving Bitcoin discussion for LN usage: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lightning-transactions-with-v3-and-ephemeral-anchors/418
Rationale:
- There are various pinning problems with RBF and our general ancestor/descendant limits. These policies help mitigate many pinning attacks and make package RBF feasible (see #28984 which implements package RBF on top of this). I would focus the most here on Rule 3 pinning. [1][2]
- Switching to a cluster-based mempool (see #27677 and #28676) requires the removal of CPFP carve out, which applications depend on. V3 + package RBF + ephemeral anchors + 1-parent-1-child package relay provides an intermediate solution.
V3 policy is for "Priority Transactions." [3][4] It allows users to opt in to more restrictive topological limits for shared transactions, in exchange for the more robust fee-bumping abilities that offers. Even though we don't have cluster limits, we are able to treat these transactions as having as having a maximum cluster size of 2.
Immediate benefits:
- You can presign a transaction with 0 fees (not just 1sat/vB!) and add a fee-bump later.
- Rule 3 pinning is reduced by a significant amount, since the attacker can only attach a maximum of 1000vB to your shared transaction.
This also enables some other cool things (again see #27463 for overall roadmap):
- Ephemeral Anchors
- Package RBF for these 1-parent-1-child packages. That means e.g. a commitment tx + child can replace another commitment tx using the child's fees.
- We can transition to a "single anchor" universe without worrying about package limit pinning. So current users of CPFP carve out would have something else to use.
- We can switch to a cluster-based mempool [5] (#27677#28676), which removes CPFP carve out [6].
[1]: Original mailing list post and discussion about RBF pinning problems https://gist.github.com/glozow/25d9662c52453bd08b4b4b1d3783b9ff, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019817.html
[2]: A FAQ is "we need this for cluster mempool, but is this still necessary afterwards?" There are some pinning issues that are fixed here and not fully fixed in cluster mempool, so we will still want this or something similar afterward.
[3]: Mailing list post for v3 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020937.html
[4]: Original PR #25038 also contains a lot of the discussion
[5]: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/an-overview-of-the-cluster-mempool-proposal/393/7
[6]: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/an-overview-of-the-cluster-mempool-proposal/393#the-cpfp-carveout-rule-can-no-longer-be-supported-12
ACKs for top commit:
sdaftuar:
ACK 29029df5c7
achow101:
ACK 29029df5c7
instagibbs:
ACK 29029df5c7 modulo that
Tree-SHA512: 9664b078890cfdca2a146439f8835c9d9ab483f43b30af8c7cd6962f09aa557fb1ce7689d5e130a2ec142235dbc8f21213881baa75241c5881660f9008d68450
While allowing submitted packages to be slightly larger than what
may be allowed in the mempool to allow simpler reasoning
about contextual-less checks vs chain limits.
Avoid adding transactions below min relay feerate because, even if they
were bumped through CPFP when entering the mempool, we do not have a
DoS-resistant way of ensuring they always remain bumped. In the future,
this rule can be relaxed (e.g. to allow packages to bump 0-fee
transactions) if we find a way to do so.
Our RBF policy is different from the rules specified in BIP125. For
example, the BIP does not mention Rule 6, and our Rule 4 uses the
(configurable) incremental relay feerate (distinct from the
minimum relay feerate). Those interested in our policy should refer to
doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md instead. These rules may also
continue to diverge with package RBF and other RBF improvements. Keep
references to the BIP125 signaling wrt sequence numbers, since that is
still correct and widely used. It is helpful to refer to this as "BIP125
signaling" since it is unambiguous and succint, especially if we have
multiple ways to signal replaceability in the future.
The rule numbers in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md correspond
largely to those of BIP 125, so we can still refer to them like "Rule 5."
glozow