Author: Peter Todd 2023-01-10 08:47:48
Published on: 2023-01-10T08:47:48+00:00
In a recent conversation on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, David A. Harding expressed confusion regarding the necessity of full-RBF, which allows for double-spending with increased fees in order to prioritize a transaction. Peter Todd responded by stating that without full-RBF, people can intentionally and unintentionally cause DoS attacks by double-spending their inputs with low-fee transactions, holding up progress until the low-fee transaction gets mined. Harding proposed that participants could simply create new transactions that do not include any conflicting inputs to avoid these attacks, but Todd pointed out that this solution is dependent on participants being aware of the double-spend, which is not always guaranteed. Todd also noted that full-RBF makes it more expensive for attackers to carry out these attacks. Todd then discussed the issue of transaction pinning, wherein an attacker creates a conflicting transaction with the aim of preventing a coinjoin or dual funding from successfully confirming. He argued that this attack is also solvable in a non-full-RBF world by creating a non-conflicting transaction, but highlighted the significant cost difference ($0.05 versus $17) between using full-RBF and not using it for protocols vulnerable to such attacks. Todd emphasized that the use of full-RBF significantly improves the success rate of automated coinjoin processes and similar protocols.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T03:52:51.864125+00:00