Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:17 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y1HG0TyuppR0uC+X@petertodd.org>
References: <Y0ZTtlRSBihNN9+v@erisian.com.au>
 <0hpdGx-1WbZdG31xaMXGHKTCjJ2-0eB5aIXUdsp3bqI1MlCx6TMZWROwpl1TVI5irrBqRN2-ydM6hmf3M5L-7ZQfazbx66oameiWTHayr6w=@wuille.net>
 <Y0d/e2sEoNRgD7KP@erisian.com.au> <Y0u8Ee2Ao375z8UD@erisian.com.au>
 <CALZpt+GSYBFxajSyZS19sQi4_6zHjkA5sP00V-pR=_NEVVUnkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y05PHYtrNmA0vg7U@erisian.com.au>
 <PC-7ALULc67cy0mTKzk_uj-pbCcwDoMuJQmmevzLPexK32B11vuzCusGSrx1wNCQ5YtMqfQeI1N5AmdemvfHEJNJ5VmZxAeaWS6E3tNZxIs=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PC-7ALULc67cy0mTKzk_uj-pbCcwDoMuJQmmevzLPexK32B11vuzCusGSrx1wNCQ5YtMqfQeI1N5AmdemvfHEJNJ5VmZxAeaWS6E3tNZxIs=@protonmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Opt-in full-RBF] Zero-conf apps in immediate
 danger
Precedence: list


--s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > And the
> > impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like
> > devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to
> > them (eg "[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolutely
> > cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so").
>=20
> Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main coi=
njoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF making =
any remarks.

FYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last night.
He gave me permission to republish our conversation:

    > Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi?

    Doesn't really affect us, afaik
    The cj doesn't signal rbf right now
    And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed=
 after successful signing
    But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get "exploited"
    So probably doesn't matter
    Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be al=
right
    We don't yet "use" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / =
will eventually

I haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation shou=
ld
be very similar.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNRxs0ACgkQJIFAPaXw
kftEYQf/SAcHQgp1r7qr1G+LL9t0WuQWgbZl7VMZDoAR5nJf6efJ1x+MVenCBj02
jbwMxqW31qsTuXEQWVL1gYJdn7mALf+Dumx1lbFhI27qzLIlYvN2mAvKEUw7TW/Z
sTaKBVbqKfncE0ZNfueS+A4hOmprNrNZgVFz4oXoqRHC+cf5BNmN8PtiaQxzIyIK
yw6eJ0Q1O4fTyN7tBOhXUux54OS5uA4tw0snwcXyfwZ5ZRVOFFDENZveZtcelMme
JJiuEukz8Ux0OSKosuHWDen6QPAMKZ0fB6cEi5Gr9+kToJrZ1hyWssXH6XUwLoHI
pZhqUPbhjT/ISVmNZGFbFG2uOFx5HQ==
=IxWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L--