Peter,
Your argument is totally hypocritical and loses when comparing quantities.
Enforcing RBF is observably more "harmful to Bitcoin" (whatever that means...) when it tries to "risk-manage propagation" of replacements, as there more Bitcoiners that want to mutually utilize 0conf than users that want to replace transactions.
Spending bitcoin is a use case, so replacing txns reduces utility and makes commitments less certain.
No one here arguing for 0conf is suggesting reorgs, so please do not sensationalize with claims of reorgs or "harm."
Take note that it is RBF proponents that have changed Bitcoin code and seek to continue to change Bitcoin, RBF that seeks to reduce commercial utility -- but 0conf proponents are not asking for changes to Bitcoin, not suggesting soft or hard forks, etc. We are asking you to stop breaking things by adding features for minority speculative interests.
-John
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of gaslighting
> happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants
> wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.
The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.
Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation _is_ an
attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few
merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.
...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make deals
with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out
double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely harmful.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org