Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for Full RBF to not exclude Zero Conf use case

From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: John Carvalho <john@synonym•to>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for Full RBF to not exclude Zero Conf use case
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:07:54 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgK9VQ3bgZZnnmTBkhF8DFrv08ywEQEC5oTvXX66d=mkoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACkWPs94npkm9b--vfAraoKxXK-2A0fgv-NBcyRHzSCASuO1Bw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6350 bytes --]

> 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood risks is a significant use case

and that use case doesn't change, at all, with full rbf.   the risk profile
will, likely, remain the same.   observation of the fee paid, history of
doing business with the customer, transaction size are all needed.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 1:50 PM Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Some further clarity on our unique trx hashes queried to our platform, our
> initial and followup numbers on unique trx hashes queried were not accurate
> - apologies. Bitcoin addresses queried and Usd value and unique were
> accurate. This is as a result of our platform viewing each queried bitcoin
> address as a transaction from our point of view.
>
>  November 2022
>   Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.5m trxs
>   Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried- circa 500k
>   USD value - circa 220m
>   December 2022
>    Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.7m trxs
>    Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried - circa 500k
>    USD value - circa 200m
>
> There are further merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on
> Bitcoin who are not working via our platform - I do not know their numbers
> but believe they are significant. 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood
> risks is a significant use case.
>
> For third party clarification please see
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
> and
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021238.html
> ________________________________
>
> Daniel Lipshitz
> GAP600| www.gap600.com
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15 PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 1:53 AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:06:15AM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
>>> > GAP600 is not a trxs processor or liquidity provider we service
>>> merchants,
>>> > payment processors & non-custodial liquidity providers - our service is
>>> > purely the 0-conf enabling our clients to accept 0-conf. Clients
>>> access our
>>> > service via API - sending us the Trx hash & output address. Our
>>> service is
>>> > not based on AML/KYC it is purely an analysis of the Bitcoin network.
>>>
>>> I checked and to sign up for your service, you ask for the name, phone
>>> number,
>>> email, and company name.
>>>
>>> That is an example of AML/KYC. By learning the tx hash and output
>>> address, you
>>> learn which addresses are associated with what real world entity is
>>> paying for
>>> your service. You learning that information for what you claim is ~10%
>>> of all
>>> transactions is a significant privacy concern. On that basiss alone, I
>>> would
>>> argue that full-rbf should be implemented specifically to destroy your
>>> business
>>> and stop the collection of that data.
>>>
>>> We have standard commercial information about the payment processors,
>> non custodial liquidity providers and merchants which become our clients -
>> we do not have any kyc/aml information or telephone number on who is
>> sending our clients the bitcoin for deposit.  For us these are just bitcoin
>> Trx which our clients choose to benefit from 0-conf deposit recognition.
>> Our service is provided via API with the only information our clients share
>> with us, regarding a specific bitcoin transaction, being public bitcoin
>> information like trx hash and output address.
>>
>> > I am not at liberty to share names of other services which have
>>> developed
>>> > their own 0-conf service - they include a payment processor on a
>>> gambling
>>> > platform which services multiple gambling operators, a standalone
>>> gaming
>>> > payment processor, and a payment processor recently I have come
>>> across. We
>>> > also do not have a significant presence in Asia - so I don't have
>>> > visibility there.
>>>
>>> No, I asked you for information on what companies are actually using
>>> *your*
>>> service. You claim to be involved with a huge % of all transactions. If
>>> that is
>>> in fact true, obviously it shouldn't be hard to provide some examples of
>>> merchants using GAP600 to accept unconfirmed txs.
>>>
>>
>> As already posted here
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021240.html
>> Max CEO from Coinspaid who has provided Cpoinspaid address clusters, see
>> link, is available to discuss further and may choose to share further
>> information on the merchants they support.
>>
>>>
>>> > I don't see it being necessarily an either/or approach here. The risk
>>> > looking to be mitigated with FullRBF seems to be able to be mitigated
>>> with
>>> > FullRBF but with a swop limitation of at least the Inputs of Trx1
>>> being in
>>> > Trx2 - no flagging required. Added to this all these trxs always have
>>> the
>>> > OptinRBF so if these platforms need to be able to recreate completely
>>> their
>>> > trxs they have that option as well. The option to Swop out or bump up
>>> trxs
>>> > seems to be well covered under those two options.
>>>
>>> You are not correct. One of the most important use-cases for full-rbf is
>>> multi-party transactions; adding that limitation to full-rbf negates that
>>> usecase. See my post on why full-rbf makes DoS attacks on multiparty
>>> protocols
>>> significantly more expensive:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021322.html
>>
>>
>> I also note that there is ongoing debate as to the need for full RBF see
>> here
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021331.html
>> .
>>
>> This seems to be an extreme edge case - with Opt-in RBF, FSS Full RBF and
>> common sense - offering enough coverage to mitigate.
>>
>> 0-conf although may not be liked by some actors in Bitcoin, is engaged
>> with free choice and understanding of the risks. 0-conf is a long standing
>> and significant use case which should not be ignored. 0-conf demise should
>> be viewed as being a major and unnecessary cost to FullRBF as currently
>> implemented.
>>
>>> --
>>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9572 bytes --]