From: Murch <murch@murch•one>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Does Bitcoin require or have an honest majority or a rational one? (re rbf) (Jeremy Rubin)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:40:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e681f8de-730c-ad44-24b9-134e9f8637ac@murch.one> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHTn92zSBHQAf=i--+dwhWHEX3U9pQPN5uc5ryGkbEb3R3H8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --]
Hello John,
On 17.10.22 02:23, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Simply, 0conf acceptance can be monitored and enforced by the merchant and exposure to doublespends can be both mitigated and limited in size per block. It is less expensive to be double-spent occasionally than to have a delayed checkout experience. Responsible 0conf acceptance is both rational and trusting.
29% of all transactions explicitly signal replaceability (see
https://transactionfee.info/charts/transactions-signaling-explicit-rbf/), trend
rising. If ignoring risk is an acceptable approach now, why would it no
longer work when the remaining 71% of transactions also became subject
to replaceability?
On 17.10.22 02:23, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Now RBF just kinda haunts us as the establishment keeps baking it deeper and deeper into Bitcoin, despite almost no one using it, and despite it having negative consequences on more popular use cases.
How can RBF at the same time be hardly used as well as an incalculable risk?
Fact of the matter is that one can neither rely on having seen all
transactions that miners are considering for their block templates, nor
that a replacement be received by the miners before the original is
picked into a block.
We're between seats: first-seen is an unstable gentlemen's agreement,
inevitable to fail eventually once a few defect. Meanwhile propping up
the illusion of "reliable payment promises" is hampering price discovery
of blockspace and complicating protocol development. By converging on
the inevitable outcome and facilitating replaceability for all
transactions, we can rip off the band-aid rather than suffer uncertainty
indefinitely—even if it requires some to honestly reassess their
business approach in light of the natural modus operandi of Bitcoin's
gossip system.
Cheers,
Murch
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 121137 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-18 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.34559.1665948998.956.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2022-10-17 6:23 ` John Carvalho
2022-10-18 13:40 ` Murch [this message]
2022-10-20 22:52 ` Peter Todd
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=e681f8de-730c-ad44-24b9-134e9f8637ac@murch.one \
--to=murch@murch$(echo .)one \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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