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

From: Lucas Ontivero <lucasontivero@gmail•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, 13 Dec 2022 11:00:26 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALHvQn06ganBSDoCJn32BmRAE9thVfkhJh3HoE+8jrm6imHk3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACkWPs9VawCYt7maiNqzafkFnHTiGJQkXMT4VXQQcG-rE2TTNw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2270 bytes --]

Some wallets like Electrum would be affected by that because they use RBF
to batch transactions so, outputs cannot be exactly the same as before.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as
> far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Daniel Lipshitz
> GAP600| www.gap600.com
> Phone: +44 113 4900 117
> Skype: daniellipshitz123
> Twitter: @daniellipshitz
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho <john@synonym•to> wrote:
>
>> Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with
>> the design?
>>
>> While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like
>> more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection)
>> I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.
>>
>> --
>> John Carvalho
>> CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600•com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being
>>> aware of it.
>>>
>>> First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
>>> by Peter Todd  seems to be a very suitable option and route
>>> which balances FullRBF while retaining  the significant 0-conf use case.
>>>
>>> This would seem like a good way forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling•org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5360 bytes --]