From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
To: lists@coryfields•com, adam.ficsor73@gmail•com
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 09:16:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhhmA9C4aF4fybfObzdGY752r74ByUfQBZzQ5rz-sR+qoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApLimiFXmX6OPe6wsvvV3YeL8i0-Y7RVvugzLBeADh3go-BzQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]
Hi Cory!
Thanks for taking a look. CC nopara as I think your questions are the same.
I think there are a few reason we won't see functionally worse privacy:
1. RBF/CPFP may require the use of an external to the original transaction
to pay sufficient fee.
2. RBF/CPFP may leak which address was the change and which was the payment.
In addition, I think there is a benefit in that:
1. RBF/CPFP requires access to the keys in the same 'security zone' as the
payment you made (e.g., if it's a multi-sig to multi-sig requires m of N to
cpfp/or RBF, whereas sponsors could be anyone).
2. Sponsors can be a fully separate arbitrary wallet.
3. You can continually coinjoin the funds in your fee-paying wallet without
tainting your main funds.
4. You can keep those funds in a lightning channel and pay your fees via
loop outs.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2919 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-19 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-19 0:51 Jeremy
2020-09-19 1:39 ` Cory Fields
2020-09-19 16:16 ` Jeremy [this message]
2020-09-19 13:37 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-19 15:01 ` nopara73
2020-09-19 16:30 ` Jeremy
2020-09-19 17:24 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-19 18:39 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-19 19:13 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-19 19:46 ` Jeremy
2020-09-20 23:10 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-21 14:52 ` David A. Harding
2020-09-21 16:27 ` Jeremy
2020-09-21 23:40 ` Antoine Riard
2020-09-22 18:05 ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-09-23 22:10 ` Jeremy
2020-09-24 4:22 ` Dmitry Petukhov
2020-09-22 6:24 ArmchairCryptologist
2020-09-22 13:52 ` Antoine Riard
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=CAD5xwhhmA9C4aF4fybfObzdGY752r74ByUfQBZzQ5rz-sR+qoQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=adam.ficsor73@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lists@coryfields$(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