On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:08:59AM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote: > That's not really pinning; painning usually refers to pinning something to > the bottom of the mempool whereas these mechanisms make it easier to > guarantee that progress can be made on confirming the transactions you're > interested in.
As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types of pinning attack. > Often times in these protocols "the call is coming inside the house". It's > not a third party adding fees we are scared of, it's a direct party to the > protocol! Often times that is true. But other times that is not true! I gave examples of use-cases where being able to arbitrary add fees to transactions is harmful; the onus is on you to argue why that is acceptable to burden those users with a new class of attack. > Sponsors or fee accounts would enable you to ensure the protocol you're > working on makes forward progress. For things like Eltoo the internal > ratchet makes this work well. > > Protocols which depend on in mempool replacements before confirmation > already must be happy (should they be secure) with any prior state being > mined. If a third party pays the fee you might even be happier since the > execution wasn't on your dime. "Must be able to deal with" is not the same thing as "Must be happy". While those use-cases do have to deal with those exceptional cases happening occasionally, it's harmful if an attacker can harass you by making those exceptional cases happen frequently. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
