From: Adrian Macneil <adrian@coinbase•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:18:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150619154054.GA13498@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3800 bytes --]
>
> > So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not technically
> > prevented is bad for the network and creating systemic risks of failure,
>
> Well it is actually; that's why myself, Wladimir van der Laan, and
> Gregory Maxwell all specifically¹ called Chainalysis's actions a sybil
> attack.
>
> The Bitcoin P2P network is resilliant to failure when the chance of any
> one node going down is uncorrelated with others. For instance if you
> accidentally introduced a bug in your nodes that failed to relay
> transactions/blocks properly, you'd simultaneously be disrupting a large
> portion of the network all at once.
>
This is exactly what your RBF patch is doing. By your own logic, nodes on
the network should be allowed to relay (or not relay) whatever they wish.
> How many nodes is Coinbase connecting too? What software are they
> running? What subnets are they using? In particular, are they all on one
> subnet or multiple?
>
We're running about a dozen nodes running regular Bitcoin Core in various
subnets. We aren't doing anything particularly out of the ordinary here.
Nothing that would fall under your definition of a sybil attack or harmful
to the network.
> > You know, you're creating an interesting bit of game theory here: if I'm
> > > a miner who doesn't already have a mining contract, why not implement
> > > full-RBF to force Coinbase to offer me one? One reason might be because
> > > other miners with such a contract - a majority - are going to be asked
> > > by Coinbase to reorg you out of the blockchain, but then we have a
> > > situation where a single entity has control of the blockchain.
> > >
> >
> > If someone did enter into contracts with miners to mine certain
> > transactions, and had a guarantee that the miners would not build on
> > previous blocks which included double spends, then they would only need
> > contracts with 51% of the network anyway. So it wouldn't really matter if
> > you were a small time miner and wanted to run full-RBF.
>
> But of course, you'd never 51% the network right? After all it's not
> possible to guarantee that your miner won't mine double-spends, as there
> is no single consensus definition of which transaction came first, nor
> can there be.
>
> Or do you see things differently? If I'm a small miner should I be
> worried my blocks might be rejected by the majority with hashing power
> contracts because I'm unable to predict which transactions Coinbase
> believes should go in the blockchain?
>
You seem so concerned that we are actively trying to harm or control the
network. We're simply trying to drive bitcoin adoption by making it easy
for people to spend their bitcoin with merchants online. The problems we
face are no different from other merchant processors, or small independent
merchants accepting online or point-of-sale payments.
We've historically had relatively little interest in what miners were doing
(until RBF came out) - for the most part it didn't affect our business.
However, most large merchants would be simply uninterested in accepting
bitcoin if we forced their customers to wait 10-60 minutes for their
payments to confirm. Many have inventory management systems which can not
even place items on hold that long.
If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively
harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS
merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all. I do not see a single benefit
to running full-RBF.
FWIW, I'm fine with the first-seen-safe RBF, that seems like a sensible
addition and a good way to allow fees to be added or increased on existing
transactions, without harming existing applications of bitcoin.
Adrian
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4657 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-19 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-19 10:39 Peter Todd
2015-06-19 13:33 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-19 13:52 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:00 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 14:08 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:30 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 14:59 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:20 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 15:40 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 16:18 ` Adrian Macneil [this message]
2015-06-19 16:37 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 20:39 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 21:05 ` Frank Flores
2015-06-19 21:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-20 0:47 ` Andreas Petersson
2015-06-20 1:09 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-20 1:23 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-20 3:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 3:48 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-20 4:02 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 16:43 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-20 17:38 ` Cameron Hejazi
2015-06-19 14:40 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 15:22 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 13:33 ` Stephen Morse
2015-06-19 13:37 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 13:48 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 14:16 ` Lawrence Nahum
2015-06-19 13:40 ` Adrian Macneil
2015-06-19 13:44 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 13:52 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-19 15:43 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 19:49 ` Jeffrey Paul
2015-06-19 15:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 16:15 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:00 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 15:11 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 15:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 15:53 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 16:36 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 16:42 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 16:46 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-19 16:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-19 16:54 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:00 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-20 23:20 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-20 23:37 ` justusranvier
2015-06-21 0:19 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 0:27 ` justusranvier
2015-06-21 0:36 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 0:54 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 5:56 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-21 6:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-21 7:42 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 8:35 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 8:41 ` Btc Drak
2015-06-21 8:51 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-21 19:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-21 18:23 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-19 16:44 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 17:48 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 17:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-19 18:00 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 16:50 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-19 16:41 ` [Bitcoin-development] Remove Us Please Gigas Gaming Inc.
2015-06-19 18:34 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-19 19:55 ` John Bodeen
2015-06-19 20:01 ` Brian Hoffman
2015-06-19 20:27 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-20 23:16 ` [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee Jorge Timón
2015-06-20 23:47 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 23:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-20 23:56 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 15:39 ` justusranvier
2015-06-19 15:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-20 20:04 ` odinn
2015-06-21 2:11 ` Dario Sneidermanis
2015-06-21 2:23 ` Dario Sneidermanis
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='CAMK47c84w=2c9y8MKHTzFf05DmKXz74a=iFViA-oZ1uRDZCAWg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=adrian@coinbase$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)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