This week’s newsletter summarizes a post about the privacy-improving payjoin proposal, links to top-voted questions and answers from Bitcoin StackExchange, and describes another busy week worth of notable commits in popular Bitcoin infrastructure projects.
None this week.
Post about BIP79 (P2EP/payjoin): Joinmarket developer Adam (waxwing) Gibson sent a post to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list about the simplified version of the Pay-to-EndPoint (P2EP) proposal described in BIP79. The proposal allows an onchain spender to include an input from the person receiving the transaction alongside the spender’s own inputs, preventing block chain analysts from being able to reasonably assume that all inputs came from the same person. This could make block chain analysis significantly less reliable even if only a fairly small number of people actually use the feature. See Newsletter #27 for details.
Gibson’s suggestions focused on modifying the proposal based on his experience implementing a P2EP-like protocol in the development version of Joinmarket, as well as feedback he’s received from the developers of Samourai Wallet, who have also implemented a variant of the protocol still in developer testing. The goal is to try to get both wallets (and many others) to use the same protocol, and also have it supported by payment processors such as BTCPay. The suggestions are pretty simple:
- Version the protocol so spending clients and receiving servers can negotiate what protocol features they support
- Rename the protocol to payjoin, as many people aren’t quite sure what to call it right now
- Use BIP174 Partially-Signed Bitcoin Transactions (PSBTs) for communicating transaction and signature data between clients and servers
- Specify that transactions should use a short list of best-practice transaction features and avoid odd-looking coin selection so that payjoin transactions blend in with normal transactions and create maximum confusion for block chain analysts
Selected Q&A from Bitcoin StackExchange
Bitcoin StackExchange is one of the first places Optech contributors look for answers to their questions—or when we have a few spare moments of time to help curious or confused users. In this monthly feature, we highlight some of the top voted questions and answers made since our last update. The section was omitted last month to make room for our year-end special, so this update includes entries from both December and January.
How should an LN node decide which channels to open? LN protocol developer and educator Rene Pickhardt describes some criteria you can use to help open productive channels. He also links to some interesting discussions about automating channel selection using the autopilot feature of LND and his own plugin for C-Lightning.
If I generate 20 million Bitcoin addresses an hour, how long until I find a collision? A user generating an incredible number of addresses using a computer with 32 cores and 128 GB of memory wonders how long until he creates two identical addresses with different private keys. Pieter Wuille’s answer and its follow-up comments describe the mathematical principles involved, calculate how long it would take—an answer given in multiples of the age of the universe—and finally dash any hopes the poster had of breaking bitcoin by pointing out that poster’s method would almost certainly find a collision only between the poster’s own addresses—leaving other users unaffected.
What’s the hold-up implementing BIP156 Dandelion in Bitcoin Core? Dandelion is a proposed method for initially relaying newly-created transactions that can make it harder to determine the network address of the wallet that created the transaction. This answer from Bitcoin Core developer Suhas Daftuar describes some of the challenges faced by developers of mission-critical relay protocols and why even conceptually-simple ideas like Dandelion might require more work to implement safely than other ideas that could also improve the system (e.g. BIP151 encryption or libminisketch efficient relay).
How to use BIP174 PSBTs with a cold wallet and watching-only wallet? It’s easy to setup two copies of Bitcoin Core, one on an offline computer as a cold wallet for storing private keys and one on a networked computer for monitoring the wallet balance and broadcasting transactions. But how would you actually use BIP174 Partially-Signed Bitcoin Transactions (PSBTs) to spend money using these two wallets? BIP174 author Andrew Chow explains.
Why relay transactions from node to node—why not send them to miners directly? It seems like the Bitcoin network could use a lot less bandwidth if everyone just sent their transactions to miners directly and then nodes only distributed blocks. Pieter Wuille explains why that would be bad for privacy and the health of the network, plus why it wouldn’t even save that much bandwidth.
Why should miners hashing arbitrary nonces inspire trust in transaction security? When described as a simple guessing game, Bitcoin’s proof of work doesn’t sound compelling, but this answer from one of Bitcoin StackExchange’s top 30 experts, Chytrik, provides a simple analogy that captures the essence of proof of work and how it helps keep Bitcoin transactions secure.
Optech also congratulates and thanks Pieter Wuille, who this month became the all-time top-voted contributor to Bitcoin StackExchange.
Notable code changes
Bitcoin Core #14955 switches the Random Number Generator (RNG) used from OpenSSL to Bitcoin Core’s own implementation, although RNG output gathered by Bitcoin Core is fed out to OpenSSL and then read back in when the program needs strong randomness. This moves Bitcoin Core a little closer to no longer needing to depend on OpenSSL, as that dependency has caused security issues in the past. The PR description and the code changes are very well documented for anyone concerned about the safety of this change.
Bitcoin Core #14353 adds a new REST call
/rest/blockhashbyheight/for fetching the block in the current best block chain based on its height (how many blocks after the Genesis Block it is).
Bitcoin Core #15193 sets the
whitelistforcerelayconfiguration option to off by default. When enabled, this option causes a node to relay transactions from its manually whitelisted peers and clients even if those transactions violate node policy or consensus rules. This could cause the relaying node, rather than the origin node or client, to be banned by its peers, so it’s better to default to turning this option off. Developers are also asking anyone using this feature to contact them so that they know it’s not an unused option that should be deprecated in the future.
LND #2314 adds a chain notifier subserver, allowing services to receive notification about changes to the best block chain—such as when new blocks are received, when transactions get confirmed, and whether or not an input has been spent.
LND #2405 allows different autopilot heuristics to be combined into a single score for each node to which you could connect. The higher a score, the more it’s expected that opening a channel to that node will increase the connectivity of your node (according to various characteristics).
LND #2350 adds a
queryoption for the autopilot that accepts a list of LN nodes and returns the scores for those nodes indicating how good a candidate they are for opening a channel to them.
LND #2460 adds support for the
max_htlcfield in channel updates. This feature allows light clients and pruned nodes to learn the maximum routing capacity of a channel belonging to a distant node without having to look up that channel’s opening transaction on the block chain—something which archival full nodes can do, but which light clients and pruned nodes can’t (not easily, at least). Now LND nodes advertise this information directly, which not only helps light clients and pruned nodes, but it also allows LN nodes to specify a value below their maximum if they only want to route smaller payments. In the future, it could also help support multipath payments—payments that are split into parts so that the total payment can be larger than the capacity of the smallest channel used.
LND #2370 adds a new sub-system that updates a
channel.backupfile each time a new channel is opened or closed. Users who backup this file can run a recovery command that will attempt to close each channel in its most recent settled state after connecting to that channel’s remote peer and initiating the data loss protection protocol specified in BOLT2.1 The backups are encrypted using a key from your main LND keychain, which itself should be encrypted by a strong passphrase of your choice.
Eclair #784 sends payments using the channel with the lowest available balance that can support sending the payment. This reserves the value in higher-value channels for larger payments that may come later. (Ultimately, if the network adopts multipath payments, the need to keep at least one channel with a balance larger than the largest payment you want to send should go away.)
The final paragraph of BOLT2 describes the
option_data_loss_protectoption. The basic idea is that a node that has potentially lost some of its state can encourage its peer to initiate a channel close. Since the peer still has the most recent state, it should close the channel using that state and allow both nodes to receive their most recent balances.
This method does carry a risk—the peer can guess that something is wrong and attempt to steal funds from the stale node by closing the channel using an old state. But the risk is mitigated in large part by the LN penalty mechanism: if the stale node does have a revocation of that old state in its backups, it can create a breach remedy transaction (justice transaction) that will seize all of the lying peer’s funds from that channel. Because of this risk, peers using the
option_data_loss_protectmechanism have an incentive to close the channel honestly with the latest state when they hear from a stale node. ↩ ↩2