From: Vincent Truong <vincent.truong@procabiak•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Use CPFP as consensus critical for Full-RBF
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:50:14 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACrzPe=LMGW6HGoUii4pog0Ezn3kEv9_US==0XPUXHp1ivzuuw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2160 bytes --]
(I haven't been following this development recently so apologies in advance
if I've made assumptions about RBF)
If you made CPFP consensus critical for all Full-RBF transactions, RBF
should be safer to use. I see RBF as a necessity for users to fix mistakes
(and not for transaction prioritisation), but we can't know for sure if
miners are playing with this policy fairly or not. It is hard to spot a
legitimate RBF and a malicious one, but if the recipient signs off on the
one they know about using CPFP, there should be no problems. This might
depend on the CPFP implementation, because you'll need a way for the
transaction to mark which output is a change address and which is a payment
to prevent the sender from signing off his own txns. (This might be bad for
privacy, but IMO a lot safer than allowing RBF double spending sprees... If
you value privacy then don't use RBF?) Or maybe let them sign it off but
make all outputs sign off somehow.
Copy/Paste from my reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ul1kb/slug/cxgegkj
Going to chime in my opinion: opt-in RBF eliminates the trust required with
miners. You don't know if they're secretly running RBF right now anyway.
Whether Peter Todd invented this is irrelevant, it was going to happen
either way either with good intentions or with malice, so better to develop
this with good intentions.
Perhaps the solution to this problem is simple. Allow Full-RBF up to the
point where a recipient creates a CPFP transaction. Any transaction with
full RBF that hasn't been signed off with a CPFP cannot go into a block,
and this can become a consensus rule rather than local policy thanks to the
opt-in flags that's inside transactions.
> P.S. (When I wrote this, I'm actually not sure how the flag looks like
and am just guessing it can be used this way. I'm not familiar with the
implementation.)
CPFP is needed so that merchants can bear the burden of fees (double
bandwidth costs aside, and frankly if RBF is allowed bandwidth is going to
increase regardless anyway). That's always the way I've being seeing its
purpose. And this makes RBF much safer to use by combining the two.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2432 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-11-29 3:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-29 3:50 Vincent Truong [this message]
2015-11-29 11:55 ` Jorge Timón
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='CACrzPe=LMGW6HGoUii4pog0Ezn3kEv9_US==0XPUXHp1ivzuuw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vincent.truong@procabiak$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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