Author: Peter Todd 2022-11-02 14:33:51
Published on: 2022-11-02T14:33:51+00:00
In an email conversation, Greg Sanders points out that even with fullrbf-everywhere and V3, pinning is still an issue in coinjoin scenarios. The adversary can double-spend their coin to either full package weight or give 24 descendants, which means one quickly pays out the nose in rule#3 or are excluded from RBFing it if you have four or more greifers in your coinjoin violating rule#5. Narrowing this policy to marking a transaction output as opt-in to V3 can contain rule#5 violations to coinjoins with about 50 peers. There's no hard technical reason for rule #5 to even exist. It's simply a conservative DoS limit to avoid having to do "too much" computation when processing a replacement in some replacement implementations. We shouldn't assume it will always exist. And like rule #3 pinning, exploiting it costs money.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T02:43:11.413654+00:00