wallet: do not backdate locktime if it may lead to fingerprinting #26902
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
rodentrabies
force-pushed
the
avoid-locktime-backdating
branch
from
50d148e to
613942d
Compare
|
Concept ACK. Thanks for picking this up! (Please drop the @ from the @0xB10C mention from the PR description. This creates notifications if software-forks of Bitcoin Core include this commit too. ) |
|
Do we want to align the implementation with Electrum? spesmilo/electrum#8073 I'm not sure if that could be a source of further fingerprinting |
rodentrabies
force-pushed
the
avoid-locktime-backdating
branch
3 times, most recently
from
479c7cc to
832af31
Compare
rodentrabies
force-pushed
the
avoid-locktime-backdating
branch
from
832af31 to
a97bd1b
Compare
rodentrabies
force-pushed
the
avoid-locktime-backdating
branch
from
a97bd1b to
0303616
Compare
ishaanam
left a comment
ishaanam
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good start, but I think that these transactions would be harder to fingerprint if the following modifications were made:
- For RBF transactions: the
nLockTimeis set to the same value as the transaction being replaced. - For spending unconfirmed utxos: Use the same behavior as before, but make sure that the
nLockTImevalue is greater than or equal to the highestnLockTImeof the inputs.
For convenience I've implemented this here: ishaanam@eb92a9a
|
Are you still working on this? |
|
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase. |
|
Closing for now. Can be reopened if picked back up etc. Looks like the user is no-longer on GH. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
9 participants
This is a draft implementation for #26526 and #26527. As suggested by 0xB10C, back-dating locktime in transactions that are RBF replacements or spend unconfirmed UTXOs may be used as a fingerprint of Bitcoin Core wallet.