Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:12:53 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of pete@petertodd.org designates 103.168.172.148 as permitted sender) client-ip=103.168.172.148;
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:08:10 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: A "Free" Relay Attack Taking Advantage of The
 Lack of Full-RBF In Core
Message-ID: <ZpvS2haduzUQiojV@petertodd.org>
References: <Zpk7EYgmlgPP3Y9D@petertodd.org>
 <18a5e5a2-92b3-4345-853d-5a63b71d848bn@googlegroups.com>
 <9c4c2a65-2c87-47f1-85d1-137c32099fb7n@googlegroups.com>
 <fd1e1dd3-ffda-416b-9bc8-900d0b69c8c1n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6+49SABjgeVjLJAD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fd1e1dd3-ffda-416b-9bc8-900d0b69c8c1n@googlegroups.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com


--6+49SABjgeVjLJAD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 10:57:40PM -0700, /dev /fd0 wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> 
> >  I'm interested if you can propose a formal or mathematical definition of 
> what constitute
> > an in-topic of off-topic comments on a matters like full RBF, which has 
> been controversial
> > for like a decade.
> 
> I will quote _willcl-ark_'s last comment as I do not have enough 
> permissions in bitcoin core repository to moderate comments:
> 
> "However the comments section here has become difficult to follow due to 
> numerous off-topic comments, a few personal disagreements, and repetition 
> of arguments. In the interest of having a more productive and focused 
> technical and philosophical discussion we are going to close and lock this 
> PR."
> 
> A new pull request should help reviewers. If you do not agree with it, feel 
> free to discuss it with moderators in bitcoin core IRC channel.

It's quite bizzare to use "off topic comments" as an excuse to close a pull-req
fixing a specific security vulnerability, assuming you actually care about that
vulnerability. As I've said elsewhere, Core could have easily and quietly
merged that pull-req as-is, possibly by having a few people write some obvious
ACK rationals.

The only good explanation for closing it is to further delay merging the
pull-req, as well as disclosing the vulnerability.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ZpvS2haduzUQiojV%40petertodd.org.

--6+49SABjgeVjLJAD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BV6o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6+49SABjgeVjLJAD--