Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF20BC002D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9DA41610 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9E9DA41610 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bitrefill.com header.i=@bitrefill.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=b header.b=Cky318w3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xI38T_IM2hiF for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 1D9FA4160F Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D9FA4160F for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id h8so2879102lja.11 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 02:34:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bitrefill.com; s=b; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=kX0A1e6wAdHZY25yyM0lEhBFean6wLqa3u0Hk0eeujs=; b=Cky318w3u2aNqU0hwwSfVmPwVtjhRRlkJ+SHAT8ApfsPDBo1wsm+Q049XKe2jsuh0g fVfVhUb3sAQmaXyEGW2VkbgEBNvmB4sCxo4lrCZTfQb4FRdVhqTSC2ED8jhkUAG0Iggl 454E0zMg7WhZITEU8KQl8vWd3loy+Puk/8fmizbjXgiUqPP13Ame9DVhxYDpMIYvSqgk vRq2tS+aNNx2VnmQaNleYL0Sb0yGQXOC0TzfrZy2wt5RopvRqe23Mdf4STn6sHu5WaHv p06eyApqFInJb2HRhB396TykOtP363NVhn71Ry8y1HyHFfDgQkAqPqlHhyp3HtGYeCM2 RtVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=kX0A1e6wAdHZY25yyM0lEhBFean6wLqa3u0Hk0eeujs=; b=oOfbxfxbpkxpknqJ9mqduv06TwkMLwD38kvnVreaPv0oVcESpoahD9sSLSejwTT8Qd BzXLoskFXfDwd9X0WdGdJKhQPX9WhNQj+taMH2YOyoyCskFT9DisWADvl4ZatGLplpTz skIyXAcUhxspPCAi4Zyj0Y1JNvOH2kVzIZCGUTbwy2sZPHmu19BfAEX41bOQ15DsBbZi eWiCIWvUAp+9l1ey0pWQTm/K9/R8BGsODvqrhWrgsUzbojMpiE4uvueFEQvYq/qVIFM6 ADIHp42tJlhF5+ouHfHiyGmCVJLPzMWPtakL6FfvhW4vWLs6hNquCOUj4oQ9XgHv5JXX M3yA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1DCpubG3wrGsAtd2X1wpc6M9R+58gJC4IfPlKvo7D3XWNhTcJh vDJljiNP4WSCpNHI3gYYtIEAOC8Cs/rhGQbugWqxcAbIYl0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7DT8bVfQcwd6hjVj7icGMGIwEXfVDXgKkUAP2E1T/uMPjKNRh3I070/oO84odzsoWqHyc0f1Z148a6Iupho8k= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8893:0:b0:26c:2f7f:c037 with SMTP id k19-20020a2e8893000000b0026c2f7fc037mr6767403lji.325.1666344868878; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 02:34:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sergej Kotliar Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:17 +0200 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fbb39105eb882576" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:39:45 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in immediate danger X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:34 -0000 --000000000000fbb39105eb882576 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" This is factually incorrect and not required for us to do what we do. On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Peter Todd wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:58:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this > > > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good > > > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not > something > > > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all? > > > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will > have to > > > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC > to a > > > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal > payment > > > processor type business. > > > > So, what I'm hearing is: > > > > * lightning works great, but is still pretty small > > * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF > > It's important to note that the businesses that say "zeroconf works great" > for > them, appear to be achieving that by sybil attacking the network to measure > propagation. That's not sustainable nor decentralized, as only a small > number > of companies can do that without causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin by using > up > inbound slots. We've gone through this before with "zeroconf guarantee" > services, and the end result is not good. > > It's in our interests to make sure those companies stop doing that, and no > new > companies start. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > -- Sergej Kotliar CEO Twitter: @ziggamon www.bitrefill.com Twitter | Blog | Angellist --000000000000fbb39105eb882576 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is factually incorrect and not required for us to do = what we do.=C2=A0

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:58:41= AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-d= ev wrote:
> > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store = via this
> > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single walle= t with a good
> > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not= something
> > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at = all?
> > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we wi= ll have to
> > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in= BTC to a
> > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your no= rmal payment
> > processor type business.
>
> So, what I'm hearing is:
>
>=C2=A0 * lightning works great, but is still pretty small
>=C2=A0 * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF

It's important to note that the businesses that say "zeroconf work= s great" for
them, appear to be achieving that by sybil attacking the network to measure=
propagation. That's not sustainable nor decentralized, as only a small = number
of companies can do that without causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin by using = up
inbound slots. We've gone through this before with "zeroconf guara= ntee"
services, and the end result is not good.

It's in our interests to make sure those companies stop doing that, and= no new
companies start.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org


--

Sergej Kotliar

CEO


Twitter: @ziggamon=C2= =A0


www= .bitrefill.com

Twitter | Blog | Angellist

--000000000000fbb39105eb882576--