Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7ACC002D for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9391A4017E for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:12:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 9391A4017E Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gap600.com header.i=@gap600.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=0Q1jrX8o X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKq-Fz7bLUy2 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:12:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org C2209400C8 Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2209400C8 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id z144so3035632iof.3 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:12:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gap600.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4WocVI/Suwfe3MXsh1JkB6q+RQd+vkjWoonbCTelF2s=; b=0Q1jrX8oImOLkZf+BOofLXNNbhoKiUZ5hBR9J+36A4wohrD3uC+cGxXwIsFnviuPVy ApOLNTUkH0vFdpuM8cebzn3UGg7aqCp+9JcLOgTvCaDDDfxXuhsW5aw1tN+a8QDOcKni h9M2MSqe22v2QogvGDPFRQSyBmhkfPeRfo4jTFl1CyHD+ZkPcxJHnaVO5HAYLarZIGBz Oz+S/rpWOakppjzLl1ZW+3SvC4m+D5UexMOBMisECes2Z7ci3D++B4c/jqJfnwCoDnZ7 ZSGNjiIC2yFU97yiycn+y8Omg62H+wJ3C1ulw6h+BCMWM7lXDeSVez4QY53aEwTd86tK o8UQ== 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=4WocVI/Suwfe3MXsh1JkB6q+RQd+vkjWoonbCTelF2s=; b=ZzeFz1BnhgVAnYz4ucNEfr5vOVTm5f5rqCv27QnNIdVG4fv+EIl6MU50+UzyR7FcZ4 DGD5HMMJ+ELMEm+Ws8OlqNhyPBmksH+XrEAUUic7Fr34V4gKJC2DUbXer96QzPQByW4a Hz8PGufSyGtpzy04jwEvxYvVIqbjOIk5JFL71iOX3pNqLpyXY6BRdutja698KZRlVmyF k0RIOUsxYLz6f/0pJrRTHRoOMShuKOt2k4a+lhjRhBy895mQPnSatQ+76Wj4Php+NIFy waYIT1vhW0vtWeVeBxrb+TLW2szcvxeNs5L4xIcSwxjviycx/Ar8gJOab1j3PY+MbIlL F0Dg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkf1UUOtcq3lcpr0KSLhxeah8/7oEMtDyHRhDtUxkIMtEqI5bPD IPOxUCZrbgerTzNVhSeggHkfYO9Uriywt5Ffrlc9IA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf68Wc6pCI4Mu80OBuAANh0dzQ9CzA9hnGxk0d+VYxttwxc5/85No+gEGZDdXwFops+avoylpNIfr3sM0KNw180= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9ecc:0:b0:6d9:c117:7a1c with SMTP id a12-20020a5d9ecc000000b006d9c1177a1cmr41051983ioe.187.1671005561547; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:12:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Lipshitz Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:12:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: John Carvalho Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea074b05efc54c78" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 09:58:33 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for Full RBF to not exclude Zero Conf use case 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: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:12:47 -0000 --000000000000ea074b05efc54c78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" A 0-conf double spend caused by FSS-RBF would be harmless since the original output (address and amounts) remain in the double spending trx. So all a merchant would need to do is monitor block inclusion for the relevant output. Addition of some wallet logic would resolve it easily. Technically the only difference is that a FSS-RBF requires an additional input trx to be included in the second trx. Not clear to me, why the limitation of adding an additional input hinders the added value of FullRBF and how significant that hinderance is. On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 11:59 John Carvalho wrote: > Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with > the design? > > While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like > more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) > I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering. > > -- > John Carvalho > CEO, Synonym.to > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz wrote: > >> Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being >> aware of it. >> >> First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >> by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route >> which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case. >> >> This would seem like a good way forward. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman >> wrote: >> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >>> >> -- ________________________________ Daniel Lipshitz GAP600 www.Gap600.com --000000000000ea074b05efc54c78 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A 0-conf double spend caused by FSS-RBF would be harmless= since the original output (address and amounts) remain in the double spend= ing trx.=C2=A0

So all a = merchant would need to do is monitor =C2=A0block inclusion for the relevant= output. Addition of some wallet logic would resolve it easily.

Technically the only difference is = that a FSS-RBF requires an additional input trx to be included in the secon= d trx.=C2=A0

Not clear t= o me, why the limitation of adding an additional input hinders the added va= lue of FullRBF and how significant that hinderance is.=C2=A0



On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 11:59= John Carvalho <john@synonym.to&g= t; wrote:
Why wasn't this so= lution put in=C2=A0place back then? Are there problems with the design?
While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Ful= l-RBF (like more doublespending at unknowing=C2=A0merchants, after years of= FSS protection) I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth consid= ering.

--
John Carvalho
CEO,=C2=A0Synonym.to

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at = 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com> wrote:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not bei= ng aware of it.

First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detail= ed here=C2=A0https://lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html=C2=A0= by Peter Todd=C2=A0 = seems to be a very suitable option and route which=C2=A0balances Ful= lRBF while retaining=C2=A0 the significant=C2=A00-conf use case.
=
This would seem like a good way forward.



________________________________=



On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at = 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org> wrote:
https://lists.linuxfo= undation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
--
________________________________
Dani= el Lipshitz
GAP600
www.Gap600.com


--000000000000ea074b05efc54c78--