154b2b2296edccb5ed24e829798dacb6195edc11 [fuzz] V3_MAX_VSIZE and effective ancestor/descendant size limits (glozow)
a29f1df289cf27c6cbd565448548b3dc1392a9b0 [policy] restrict all v3 transactions to 10kvB (glozow)
d578e2e3540e085942001350ff3aeb047bdac973 [policy] explicitly require non-v3 for CPFP carve out (glozow)
Pull request description:
Opening for discussion / conceptual review.
We like the idea of a smaller maximum transaction size because:
- It lowers potential replacement cost (i.e. harder to do Rule 3 pinning via gigantic transaction)
- They are easier to bin-pack in block template production
- They equate to a tighter memory limit in data structures that are bounded by a number of transactions (e.g. orphanage and vExtraTxnForCompact). For example, the current memory bounds for orphanage is 100KvB * 100 = 40MB, and guaranteeing 1 tx per peer would require reserving a pretty large space.
History for `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT=100KvB` (copied from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#issuecomment-2115459510):
- 2010-09-13 In 3df62878c3 satoshi added a 100kB (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN/5 with MBS_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2) limit on new transactions in CreateTransaction()
- 2013-02-04 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2273 In gavin gave that constant a name, and made it apply to transaction relay as well
Lowering `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT` for all txns is not being proposed, as there are existing apps/protocols that rely on large transactions. However, it's been brought up that we should consider this for TRUCs (which is especially designed to avoid Rule 3 pinning).
This reduction should be ok because using nVersion=3 isn't standard yet, so this wouldn't break somebody's existing use case. If we find that this is too small, we can always increase it later. Decreasing would be much more difficult.
~[Expected size of a commitment transaction](https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#expected-weight-of-the-commitment-transaction) is within (900 + 172 * 483 + 224) / 4 = 21050vB~ EDIT: this is incorrect, but perhaps not something that should affect how we choose this number.
ACKs for top commit:
sdaftuar:
ACK 154b2b2296edccb5ed24e829798dacb6195edc11
achow101:
ACK 154b2b2296edccb5ed24e829798dacb6195edc11
instagibbs:
ACK 154b2b2296edccb5ed24e829798dacb6195edc11
t-bast:
ACK 154b2b2296
murchandamus:
crACK 154b2b2296edccb5ed24e829798dacb6195edc11
Tree-SHA512: 89392a460908a8ea9f547d90e00f5181de0eaa9d2c4f2766140a91294ade3229b3d181833cad9afc93a0d0e8c4b96ee2f5aeda7c50ad7e6f3a8320b9e0c5ae97
This is done in preparation for the next two commits, where the
CMainSignals are de-globalized.
This avoids adding new constructor arguments to the ChainstateManager
and CTxMemPool classes over the next two commits.
This could also allow future tests that are only interested in the
internal behaviour of the classes to forgo instantiating the signals.
Ensure we are checking sigop-adjusted virtual size by creating setups
and packages where sigop cost is larger than bip141 vsize.
Co-authored-by: Gregory Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
`CBlockPolicyEstimator` will implement `CValidationInterface` and
subscribe to its notification to process transactions added and removed
from the mempool.
Re-delegate calculation of `validForFeeEstimation` from validation to fee estimator.
Also clean up the validForFeeEstimation arg thats no longer needed in `CTxMempool`.
Co-authored-by: Matt Corallo <git@bluematt.me>
With subpackage evaluation and de-duplication, it's not always the
entire package that is used in CheckFeerate. To be more helpful to the
caller, specify which transactions were included in the evaluation and
what the feerate was.
Instead of PCKG_POLICY (which is supposed to be for package-wide
errors), use PCKG_TX.
