MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.15.1670068802.22993.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
 <CAHTn92zCFf+9yNgRZuoJ8L54fxJmPoOwcU3a9kSY5PLoYMk9dA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHTn92zCFf+9yNgRZuoJ8L54fxJmPoOwcU3a9kSY5PLoYMk9dA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:06:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CALZpt+F_B6MA18P9BQK9wKBE7hZzHa-tP6RiwTKaP=d9FrzujA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a79d6805ef20eea2"
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 91, Issue 5
Precedence: list

--000000000000a79d6805ef20eea2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi John,

Thanks for expressing your thoughts on the current state of
`-mempoolfullrbf`, from the perspective of a merchant and zero-conf
proponent. First and foremost, we're dealing with a nuanced and rich topic,
implying not only the inner workings of Bitcoin Core mempool policy rules,
the current topology of the peer-to-peer network and transactions
propagation across it, the miner block construction strategy, but even
further the consequences on multiple class of use-cases such as on-chain
payments, Ligthning and coinjoins.

In the present case, and as always, I'm only speaking for myself, based on
my years-long experience contributing to Bitcoin Core, the wider Lightning
ecosystem and few other open-source projects. While there is a
self-awareness of the scope of my statements expressed in one of my (rough)
domains of expertise, as usual I invite anyone to reason by oneself and
check my saying for opinions and wrongs.

That disclaimer said, in matters of feature removal, to the best of my
knowledge the Bitcoin Core's "decision-making" process should be followed
like any other code change, as documented by the CONTRIBUTING.md [0]. In
the conceptual appreciation of the change in soundness, of course the
ecosystem impacts or utility are lawfully decision grounds, as we've done
in the past for many Lightning/L2-related PRs.

W.r.t `mempoolfullrbf`, it has been argued on one-side it would a benefit
for some wallets usage (i.e replace non-signaling transactions from legacy
software [1]) and multi-party applications/ contracting protocols (i.e
remove a DoS vector [2]). On the other hand, it would change the security
model expectations of the 0confs operators. Whatever the evaluation one can
have of the soundness of those expectations, I think there is a lowering of
the technical bar one should reach to accomplish a double-spend.

During the last months of discussions, we had a mempool policy design
philosophy proposed aiming to accommodate all the Bitcoin use-cases alive
on the network, under the conditions they're not harming the network
interests [3]. Under this paradigm, we could have a policy regime for each
use-case, and we can devise another special rule to solve the DoS vector
affecting multi-party applications/contracting protocols have been proposed
[4].

With that in consideration, there is still the open question if this
mempool policy design philosophy proposed is sound enough in face of miner
incentives and won't generate asymmetries in mining incomes. Not only now,
but also in a future world where fee reward is most of miners income. To
the best of my understanding, there isn't an established and practical
model of miner incentives, at least among the Bitcoin Core developers. To
underscore, from my perspective this is where the conceptual discussion is
blocked, and where it would be opportune to spend time and energy on.
Anyone is invited to contribute on that front.

Zooming out, I believe the lack of current fullrbf hashrate shouldn't be a
disqualification that this mempool policy rule is not miner incentive
compatible. In the realm of science, the value of a model is its
performance to predict events, even if with a macro-system like Bitcoin
mining it might take years for the empirical confirmation to happen (namely
the exhaustion of mining reward). As we're seeing in physics, some lessons
of Einstein's general relativity expressed in the 1900 were only confirmed
by observation of solar eclipse in 1919.

In the meantime, as `mempoolfullrbf` is altering the security expectations
of the 0conf operators and on the other side the Lightning/coinjoins folks
have expressed low sensibility to the DoS vector [5], following a "first,
do not harm" philosophy, I think as an ecosystem we're better off to remove
the "risk-induction" `mempoolfullrbf` feature. Renewing here my position
previously expressed in #26438 [6] and #26525 [7].

Qualifying the existence of a harm in the eyes of the community, I think
this is valuable to have more merchants/services operators producing
effective usage data, from the past years, as Bitrefill has done as an
example [8]. Minding the lack of a verifiable process to attest the
authenticity of such merchant claims raises a methodological issue in the
discussion (and we could so in the future with cool ZKPs based on on-chain
data!)

Of course, I think we shouldn't lose sight of the existence of a
`mempoolfullrbf` patch, now widely disseminated across the ecosystem could
lead to a situation where only a minority of node operators using it would
damage the safety of the 0confs use-case. There is not that much the
Bitcoin Core project could do in that regard. While I think the project
aims to maximize the safety of the peer-to-peer network as a design
principle, including when we might have to restrain user choice, policy
rules are "soft" rules and the autonomy to modify them is only a function
of one's technical ability.

On the qualification of the Bitcoin Core as a political process, I think
this is an ignorance of the practice of day-to-day Core's process, where
the best code and reasonings are winning based on scientific and
engineering standards, even if we've always had a margin of improvements.
People are striving their best to ensure we follow an idea meritocracy
according to best open-source practice, and I think the project (and
Bitcoin itself in its 10+ years of history) wouldn't have survived so far
if it has been otherwise.

Finally, I can understand we have no economical data yet for the
multi-party funded and p2p coinjoins use-cases, as the specification
enabling them is still WIP and have not been implemented by all LN
softwares. I also fully understand the skepticism on how mempoolfullrbf
would solve a DoS vector for LN multi-party funded transactions, even if
I've done my best to describe the issue previously. I'm staying available
to demonstrate the pinning against a mainnet LN dual-funding flow if that
would convince you further, and then explain how the wide deployment of
mempoolfullrbf would block the DoS. I agree with you that instant channel
opening or splicing is very valuable, but there are a lot of additional
solutions that operators could deploy to have more fine-grained
risk-management.

All that said, I appreciate when anyone in the community raises the voice
to check-and-balance the work of Bitcoin Core contributors, this is really
needed for the health of the development process, as long as it's done in a
respectful and patient way.

Sincerely,
Antoine

[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26438#issuecomment-1304370679
[2]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.h=
tml
[3]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021135=
.html
[4]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/02114=
4.html
[5]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/02118=
3.html
[6] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26438#issuecomment-1305042950
[7] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1319499006
[8] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1332823282

Le lun. 5 d=C3=A9c. 2022 =C3=A0 12:26, John Carvalho <john@synonym.to> a =
=C3=A9crit :

> Antoine,
>
>
>> In the direction of removing the current option from Bitcoin Core, I
>> think the prerequisite to address are the qualification of enough econom=
ic
>> flows at risk and the presence of a sizable loss in miners income.
>
>
> Are such prerequisites for feature removal published somewhere? I don't
> see any reason why removing a controversial change should be harder than
> adding one. Generally, it is impossible to definitively attribute any
> change in network condition to one thing in such a complex system, and al=
so
> difficult to know how much time is required to express negative effects.
> The whole argument here is to prevent disruption of the status quo that h=
as
> lasted the whole history of Bitcoin, to avoid taking a speculative risk
> that full-RBF, at the expense of zero-conf, is maybe better for miners...
> or something.
>
> Further, I feel the mempoolfullrbf feature was rushed through while this
> controversy was growing, specifically to attempt to achieve this imaginar=
y
> protection of "sorry, that ship has sailed" which indicates an agenda tha=
t
> is counter to greater social consensus and status quo. We should not
> incentivize such behavior further by allowing this sort of feature
> sainthood.
>
> Beyond that, I think there is still the open question if we (we, as the
>> Bitcoin protocol development community, with all its stakeholders) shoul=
d
>> restrain user choice in policy settings in the name of preserving mining
>> income and established use-case stability.
>
>
> Removing the mempoolfullrbf feature is the opposite of restraining user
> choice.
>
> First, any incentivized user can still create and distribute patches for
> any given mempool policy, regardless of whether we remove the feature fro=
m
> Core, but it is important to note that extremely few have felt the need t=
o
> do so in the past.
>
> Second, the very debate here is about how it is mempoolfullrbf that
> removes the user choice of zero-conf services. With a first-seen policy i=
n
> place, users have *more* options, and Bitcoin is thus more useful, and th=
us
> more valuable to everyone. This is evident in that the feature of full-rb=
f
> is that it overrides any ability for users to signal intent of how they
> wish their transaction to be handled by nodes and miners. This is useful
> info to miners, as they make more money by facilitating use cases than by
> fee-minimizers painting everything as RBF. User-signaling is a useful
> feature for the mempool, full-RBF removes that feature.
>
> Third, when Bitcoin Core adds special support for specific policies, it
> positions itself as a political authority and influencer. It is not Core'=
s
> place to support one subjective policy more than another, particularly wh=
en
> it conflicts with years of status quo and breaks the current user space,
> and likely resulting in more doublespent user experiences.
>
> To recall, the original technical motivation of this option, and the wide=
r
>> smoother deployment was to address a DoS vector affecting another class =
of
>> use-case: multi-party transactions like coinjoin and contracting protoco=
ls
>> like Lightning [2] [3]. All of them expect to generate economic flows an=
d
>> corresponding mining income. Since then, alternative paths to solve this
>> DoS vector have been devised, all with their own trade-offs and conceptu=
al
>> issues [4] [5].
>
>
> I am particularly skeptical that users sending Bitcoin to themselves
> (coinjoin) could ever be more incentive-compatible than fast-paced commer=
ce
> & priority competition. I am also skeptical that mempoolfullrbf actually
> solves LN risks any better than opt-in RBF by default by LN implementatio=
ns
> and wallets.
>
> Further, zero-conf support reduces friction for LN adoption by allowing u=
s
> to make instant, seamless UX within wallets when onboarding, rebalancing,
> and splicing.
>
> --
> John Carvalho
> CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>
>
>
>
>>
>> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:35:39 -0500
>> From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
>> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in
>>         immediate       danger
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CALZpt+HFFwY4XECNZj3XLqnaumPeDjrwvnCsRa3vsGQfuXn8wA@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> >From my understanding of GAP600, you're operating a zero-conf risk
>> analysis
>> business, which is integrated and leveraged by payment
>> processors/liquidity
>> providers and merchants. A deployment of fullrbf by enough full-node
>> operators and a subset of the mining hashrate would lower the cost of
>> double-spend attack by lamda users, therefore increasing the risk exposu=
re
>> of your users. This increased risk exposure could lead you to alter the
>> acceptance of incoming zero-conf transactions, AFAICT in a similar
>> reasoning as exposed by Bitrefill earlier this year [0].
>>
>> About the statistics you're asking for considerations, few further
>> questions, on those 1.5M transactions per month, a) how many are
>> Bitcoin-only (as I understand to be multi-cryptocurrencies), b) how many
>> are excluded from zeroconf due to factors like RBF, long-chain of
>> unconfirmed ancestors or too high-value and c) what has been the average
>> feerate (assuming a standard size of 200 bytes) ?
>>
>> My personal position on fullrbf is still the same as expressed in #26525
>> [1]. As a community, I think we still don't have conceptual consensus on
>> deploying full-rbf, nor to remove it. In the direction of removing the
>> current option from Bitcoin Core, I think the prerequisite to address ar=
e
>> the qualification of enough economic flows at risk and the presence of a
>> sizable loss in miners income. Beyond that, I think there is still the
>> open
>> question if we (we, as the Bitcoin protocol development community, with
>> all
>> its stakeholders) should restrain user choice in policy settings in the
>> name of preserving mining income and established use-case stability.
>>
>> To recall, the original technical motivation of this option, and the wid=
er
>> smoother deployment was to address a DoS vector affecting another class =
of
>> use-case: multi-party transactions like coinjoin and contracting protoco=
ls
>> like Lightning [2] [3]. All of them expect to generate economic flows an=
d
>> corresponding mining income. Since then, alternative paths to solve this
>> DoS vector have been devised, all with their own trade-offs and conceptu=
al
>> issues [4] [5].
>>
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>>
>

--000000000000a79d6805ef20eea2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi John,<br><br>Thanks for expressing your thoughts on the=
 current state of `-mempoolfullrbf`, from the perspective of a merchant and=
 zero-conf proponent. First and foremost, we&#39;re dealing with a nuanced =
and rich topic, implying not only the inner workings of Bitcoin Core mempoo=
l policy rules, the current topology of the peer-to-peer network and transa=
ctions propagation across it, the miner block construction strategy, but ev=
en further the consequences on multiple class of use-cases such as on-chain=
 payments, Ligthning and coinjoins.<br><br>In the present case, and as alwa=
ys, I&#39;m only speaking for myself, based on my years-long experience con=
tributing to Bitcoin Core, the wider Lightning ecosystem and few other open=
-source projects. While there is a self-awareness of the scope of my statem=
ents expressed in one of my (rough) domains of expertise, as usual I invite=
 anyone to reason by oneself and check my saying for opinions and wrongs.<b=
r><br>That disclaimer said, in matters of feature removal, to the best of m=
y knowledge the Bitcoin Core&#39;s &quot;decision-making&quot; process shou=
ld be followed like any other code change, as documented by the CONTRIBUTIN=
G.md [0]. In the conceptual appreciation of the change in soundness, of cou=
rse the ecosystem impacts or utility are lawfully decision grounds, as we&#=
39;ve done in the past for many Lightning/L2-related PRs.<br><br>W.r.t `mem=
poolfullrbf`, it has been argued on one-side it would a benefit for some wa=
llets usage (i.e replace non-signaling transactions from legacy software [1=
]) and multi-party applications/ contracting protocols (i.e remove a DoS ve=
ctor [2]). On the other hand, it would change the security model expectatio=
ns of the 0confs operators. Whatever the evaluation one can have of the sou=
ndness of those expectations, I think there is a lowering of the technical =
bar one should reach to accomplish a double-spend.<br><br>During the last m=
onths of discussions, we had a mempool policy design philosophy proposed ai=
ming to accommodate all the Bitcoin use-cases alive on the network, under t=
he conditions they&#39;re not harming the network interests [3]. Under this=
 paradigm, we could have a policy regime for each use-case, and we can devi=
se another special rule to solve the DoS vector affecting multi-party appli=
cations/contracting protocols have been proposed [4].<br><br>With that in c=
onsideration, there is still the open question if this mempool policy desig=
n philosophy proposed is sound enough in face of miner incentives and won&#=
39;t generate asymmetries in mining incomes. Not only now, but also in a fu=
ture world where fee reward is most of miners income. To the best of my und=
erstanding, there isn&#39;t an established and practical model of miner inc=
entives, at least among the Bitcoin Core developers. To underscore, from my=
 perspective this is where the conceptual discussion is blocked, and where =
it would be opportune to spend time and energy on. Anyone is invited to con=
tribute on that front.<br><br>Zooming out, I believe the lack of current fu=
llrbf hashrate shouldn&#39;t be a disqualification that this mempool policy=
 rule is not miner incentive compatible. In the realm of science, the value=
 of a model is its performance to predict events, even if with a macro-syst=
em like Bitcoin mining it might take years for the empirical confirmation t=
o happen (namely the exhaustion of mining reward). As we&#39;re seeing in p=
hysics, some lessons of Einstein&#39;s general relativity expressed in the =
1900 were only confirmed by observation of solar eclipse in 1919.<br><br>In=
 the meantime, as `mempoolfullrbf` is altering the security expectations of=
 the 0conf operators and on the other side the Lightning/coinjoins folks ha=
ve expressed low sensibility to the DoS vector [5], following a &quot;first=
, do not harm&quot; philosophy, I think as an ecosystem we&#39;re better of=
f to remove the &quot;risk-induction&quot; `mempoolfullrbf` feature. Renewi=
ng here my position previously expressed in #26438 [6] and #26525 [7].<br><=
br>Qualifying the existence of a harm in the eyes of the community, I think=
 this is valuable to have more merchants/services operators producing effec=
tive usage data, from the past years, as Bitrefill has done as an example [=
8]. Minding the lack of a verifiable process to attest the authenticity of =
such merchant claims raises a methodological issue in the discussion (and w=
e could so in the future with cool ZKPs based on on-chain data!)<br><br>Of =
course, I think we shouldn&#39;t lose sight of the existence of a `mempoolf=
ullrbf` patch, now widely disseminated across the ecosystem could lead to a=
 situation where only a minority of node operators using it would damage th=
e safety of the 0confs use-case. There is not that much the Bitcoin Core pr=
oject could do in that regard. While I think the project aims to maximize t=
he safety of the peer-to-peer network as a design principle, including when=
 we might have to restrain user choice, policy rules are &quot;soft&quot; r=
ules and the autonomy to modify them is only a function of one&#39;s techni=
cal ability.<br><br>On the qualification of the Bitcoin Core as a political=
 process, I think this is an ignorance of the practice of day-to-day Core&#=
39;s process, where the best code and reasonings are winning based on scien=
tific and engineering standards, even if we&#39;ve always had a margin of i=
mprovements. People are striving their best to ensure we follow an idea mer=
itocracy according to best open-source practice, and I think the project (a=
nd Bitcoin itself in its 10+ years of history) wouldn&#39;t have survived s=
o far if it has been otherwise.<br><br>Finally, I can understand we have no=
 economical data yet for the multi-party funded and p2p coinjoins use-cases=
, as the specification enabling them is still WIP and have not been impleme=
nted by all LN softwares. I also fully understand the skepticism on how mem=
poolfullrbf would solve a DoS vector for LN multi-party funded transactions=
, even if I&#39;ve done my best to describe the issue previously. I&#39;m s=
taying available to demonstrate the pinning against a mainnet LN dual-fundi=
ng flow if that would convince you further, and then explain how the wide d=
eployment of mempoolfullrbf would block the DoS. I agree with you that inst=
ant channel opening or splicing is very valuable, but there are a lot of ad=
ditional solutions that operators could deploy to have more fine-grained ri=
sk-management.<br><br>All that said, I appreciate when anyone in the commun=
ity raises the voice to check-and-balance the work of Bitcoin Core contribu=
tors, this is really needed for the health of the development process, as l=
ong as it&#39;s done in a respectful and patient way. <br><br>Sincerely,<br=
>Antoine<br><br>[0] <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/mast=
er/CONTRIBUTING.md">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBU=
TING.md</a><br>[1] <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26438=
#issuecomment-1304370679">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26438#iss=
uecomment-1304370679</a><br>[2] <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html</a><br>[3] <a href=3D"h=
ttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021135.=
html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/=
021135.html</a><br>[4] <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piperma=
il/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/021144.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/021144.html</a><br>[5] <a href=3D"http=
s://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/021183.ht=
ml">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/0=
21183.html</a><br>[6] <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26=
438#issuecomment-1305042950">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26438#=
issuecomment-1305042950</a><br>[7] <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bi=
tcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1319499006">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi=
n/pull/26525#issuecomment-1319499006</a><br>[8] <a href=3D"https://github.c=
om/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1332823282">https://github.com/b=
itcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1332823282</a><br></div><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0lun. 5 d=
=C3=A9c. 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A012:26, John Carvalho &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:john@s=
ynonym.to">john@synonym.to</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Antoine,</div>=
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In the d=
irection of removing the current option from Bitcoin Core, I think the prer=
equisite to address are the qualification of enough economic flows at risk =
and the presence of a sizable loss in miners income.=C2=A0</blockquote><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div>Are such prerequisites for feature removal publ=
ished somewhere? I don&#39;t see any reason why removing a controversial ch=
ange should=C2=A0be harder than adding one. Generally, it is impossible to =
definitively attribute any change in network condition to one thing in such=
 a complex system, and also difficult to know how much time is required to =
express negative effects. The whole argument here is to prevent disruption =
of the status quo that has lasted the whole history of Bitcoin, to avoid ta=
king a speculative risk that full-RBF, at the expense of zero-conf, is mayb=
e better for miners... or something.</div><div><br></div><div>Further, I fe=
el the mempoolfullrbf=C2=A0feature was rushed through while this controvers=
y was growing, specifically to attempt to achieve this imaginary protection=
 of &quot;sorry, that ship has sailed&quot; which indicates an agenda that =
is counter to greater social consensus and status quo. We should not incent=
ivize such behavior further by allowing this sort of feature sainthood.=C2=
=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">B=
eyond that, I think there is still the open question if we (we, as the Bitc=
oin protocol development community, with all its stakeholders) should restr=
ain user choice in policy settings in the name of preserving mining income =
and established use-case stability.</blockquote><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div>=
<div>Removing the mempoolfullrbf feature is the opposite of restraining use=
r choice.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>First, any incentivized user can s=
till create and distribute patches for any given mempool policy, regardless=
 of whether we remove the feature from Core, but it is important to note th=
at extremely few have felt the need to do so in the past.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Second, the very debate here is about how it is mempoolfullrbf that=
 removes the user choice of zero-conf services. With a first-seen policy in=
 place, users have *more* options, and Bitcoin is thus more useful, and thu=
s more valuable to everyone. This is evident in that the feature of full-rb=
f is that it overrides any ability for users to signal intent of how they w=
ish their transaction to be handled by nodes and miners. This is useful inf=
o to miners, as they make more money by facilitating use cases than by fee-=
minimizers painting everything as RBF. User-signaling is a useful feature f=
or the mempool, full-RBF removes that feature.</div><div><br></div><div>Thi=
rd, when Bitcoin Core adds special support for specific policies, it positi=
ons itself as a political authority and influencer. It is not Core&#39;s pl=
ace to support one subjective policy more than another, particularly when i=
t conflicts with years of status quo and breaks the current user space, and=
 likely resulting in more doublespent user experiences.</div><div><br></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border=
-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">To recall, the original =
technical motivation of this option, and the wider smoother deployment was =
to address a DoS vector affecting another class of use-case: multi-party tr=
ansactions like coinjoin and contracting protocols like Lightning [2] [3]. =
All of them expect to generate economic flows and corresponding mining inco=
me. Since then, alternative paths to solve this DoS vector have been devise=
d, all with their own trade-offs and conceptual issues [4] [5].</blockquote=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">I am particularly skeptical th=
at users sending Bitcoin to themselves (coinjoin) could ever be more incent=
ive-compatible than fast-paced commerce &amp; priority competition. I am al=
so skeptical that mempoolfullrbf actually solves LN risks any better than o=
pt-in RBF by default by LN implementations and wallets.=C2=A0</div><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Further, zero-conf support reduces fric=
tion for LN adoption by allowing us to make instant, seamless UX within wal=
lets when onboarding, rebalancing, and splicing.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"ltr=
"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"c=
olor:rgb(34,34,34)">--</span><br style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div dir=3D"=
ltr" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div dir=3D"ltr">John Carvalho</div><div=
 dir=3D"ltr">CEO,=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://synonym.to/" style=3D"color:rgb(17=
,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">Synonym.to</a><br><div><br></div></div></div></=
div></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><br>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:35:39 -0500<br>
From: Antoine Riard &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:antoine.riard@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">antoine.riard@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&g=
t;<br>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 immediate=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0danger<br>
Message-ID:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:CALZpt%2BHFFwY4XECNZj3XLq=
naumPeDjrwvnCsRa3vsGQfuXn8wA@mail.gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">CALZpt+HFFwY=
4XECNZj3XLqnaumPeDjrwvnCsRa3vsGQfuXn8wA@mail.gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D&quot;utf-8&quot;<br>
<br>
Hi Daniel,<br>
<br>
&gt;From my understanding of GAP600, you&#39;re operating a zero-conf risk =
analysis<br>
business, which is integrated and leveraged by payment processors/liquidity=
<br>
providers and merchants. A deployment of fullrbf by enough full-node<br>
operators and a subset of the mining hashrate would lower the cost of<br>
double-spend attack by lamda users, therefore increasing the risk exposure<=
br>
of your users. This increased risk exposure could lead you to alter the<br>
acceptance of incoming zero-conf transactions, AFAICT in a similar<br>
reasoning as exposed by Bitrefill earlier this year [0].<br>
<br>
About the statistics you&#39;re asking for considerations, few further<br>
questions, on those 1.5M transactions per month, a) how many are<br>
Bitcoin-only (as I understand to be multi-cryptocurrencies), b) how many<br=
>
are excluded from zeroconf due to factors like RBF, long-chain of<br>
unconfirmed ancestors or too high-value and c) what has been the average<br=
>
feerate (assuming a standard size of 200 bytes) ?<br>
<br>
My personal position on fullrbf is still the same as expressed in #26525<br=
>
[1]. As a community, I think we still don&#39;t have conceptual consensus o=
n<br>
deploying full-rbf, nor to remove it. In the direction of removing the<br>
current option from Bitcoin Core, I think the prerequisite to address are<b=
r>
the qualification of enough economic flows at risk and the presence of a<br=
>
sizable loss in miners income. Beyond that, I think there is still the open=
<br>
question if we (we, as the Bitcoin protocol development community, with all=
<br>
its stakeholders) should restrain user choice in policy settings in the<br>
name of preserving mining income and established use-case stability.<br>
<br>
To recall, the original technical motivation of this option, and the wider<=
br>
smoother deployment was to address a DoS vector affecting another class of<=
br>
use-case: multi-party transactions like coinjoin and contracting protocols<=
br>
like Lightning [2] [3]. All of them expect to generate economic flows and<b=
r>
corresponding mining income. Since then, alternative paths to solve this<br=
>
DoS vector have been devised, all with their own trade-offs and conceptual<=
br>
issues [4] [5].<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Antoine<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000a79d6805ef20eea2--