From: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
John Carvalho <john@synonym•to>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for Full RBF to not exclude Zero Conf use case
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 23:58:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACkWPs_jSLDg3seON0uu=ri6iR9cytXo2MEPJ5PVeap+iDreeQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y5jxmItJIpIUVY+x@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3363 bytes --]
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 23:41 Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:33:00PM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> > I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as
> > far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.
>
> There are lots of problems with my first-seen-safe proposal. The only
> reason I
> proposed it in 2015 was as a political compromise.
>
> > The reasons I can find for not being adopted are listed here -
> > https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not
> First-seen-safe
> > Replace-by-fee
> >
> > Those reasons do not seem pertinent here - given OptinRBF already exists
> > as an option and the added benefit of continuing to be able to support
> > 0-conf.
>
> First-seen-safe is incompatible with the #1 reason why mempoolfullrbf was
> merged into Bitcoin Core: multi-party transactions.
>
> With multi-party transactions such as coinjoins and multi-party lightning
> channels, we want full-rbf behavior because it avoids accidental
> double-spends
> holding up progress in these protocols.
what is meant by accidental double spends ? And do you have any data as to
how often these occur and would cause harm?
Second, for intentional DoS attacks, it
> makes those attacks much more expensive by forcing the attacker to use
> tx-pinning.
how are these Dos attacks mitigated today if Full RBF is not in place ?
>
>
> Nothing less than full-rbf without restritions on outputs works for this
> use-case. The only compromise possible is Antoine Riard's spent-nVersion
> signalling proposal¹, which has a significant, negative, privacy impact².
> It
> also increases costs and time in many cases, as you often have to create
> new
> outputs to flag full-rbf.
>
> Thus we have a political tradeoff between a handful of centralized services
> such as yours that benefit from the first-seen status quo, and the much
> larger
> group of users that use Lightning and coinjoins.
How many users are currently using Lightning and coinjoins today ?
> We've already been through
> such a political tradeoff before with the blocksize debate - again, the
> centralized payment providers lost the debate.
I don’t think this has anything to do with block size debate or
decentralisation just looking to protect a significant use case that has
been in place - GAP600 is by no means the only service provider is this
place there are many merchants who do 0-conf on there own.
>
>
>
> Anyway, my advice to you is to either change your business model to make
> use of
> scalable instant payment tech such as Lightning. Or give up on Bitcoin and
> expand your business with other chians, such as BSV³. The fact is some
> hashing
> power is already beginning to run with full-rbf⁴, and I fully expect that
> % to
> increase over time.
>
> 1)
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/021144.html
> 2)
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021250.html
> 3) https://www.gap600.com/bitcoin/gap600-supports-bsv/
> 4)
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021260.html
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
--
________________________________
Daniel Lipshitz
GAP600
www.Gap600.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5475 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-13 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-11 20:24 Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-13 4:20 ` Yuval Kogman
2022-12-13 8:08 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-13 9:59 ` John Carvalho
2022-12-13 11:33 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-13 14:00 ` Lucas Ontivero
2022-12-13 14:08 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-13 21:41 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-13 21:58 ` Daniel Lipshitz [this message]
2022-12-16 21:14 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-18 8:06 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2023-01-13 23:53 ` Peter Todd
2023-01-14 20:15 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2023-01-16 10:19 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2023-01-17 17:07 ` Erik Aronesty
2023-01-17 17:27 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2023-02-04 16:27 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-06 12:08 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-14 8:12 ` Daniel Lipshitz
2022-12-14 17:41 ` Erik Aronesty
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='CACkWPs_jSLDg3seON0uu=ri6iR9cytXo2MEPJ5PVeap+iDreeQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=daniel@gap600$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=john@synonym$(echo .)to \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/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