From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Matt Corallo <matt@chaincode•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:19:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211181943.GA9855@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:39:32PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2017 7:24:04 PM Sjors Provoost wrote:
> > I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,
> > which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants
> > who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> > that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.
> >
> > So a BIP-21 URI would look like this:
> > bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.3&no125=1
> >
> > When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> > default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
>
> This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF flag.
> I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly
> doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of the
> flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any case.
I'll second the objection to a no-RBF flag.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-11 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-05 19:24 Sjors Provoost
2017-12-05 19:39 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-12-05 20:00 ` Sjors Provoost
2017-12-05 20:06 ` CryptAxe
2017-12-11 18:19 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2017-12-23 16:25 ` Matt Corallo
2017-12-23 18:33 ` Paul Iverson
2017-12-05 19:40 ` CryptAxe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171211181943.GA9855@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=matt@chaincode$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox