Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:04:03 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y2J40/Cd40fUlFjj@petertodd.org>
References: <CALZpt+GZAd-vYMzUMicg0c9OyyWExtT5EH61Hms6NNOM19ddZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YpW0Xlw4YoIoJXhD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+GZAd-vYMzUMicg0c9OyyWExtT5EH61Hms6NNOM19ddZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Solving Multi-Party Flows Pinning with Opt-in
 Full-RBF Spent-nVersion Signaling
Precedence: list


--YpW0Xlw4YoIoJXhD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 10:21:59PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> Hi list,
>=20
> Reading Suhas's post on mempool policy consistency rules, and the grounded
> suggestion that as protocol developers we should work on special policy
> rules to support each reasonable use case on the network rather to arbiter
> between class of use-cases in the design of an
> unified set of rules, reminded me there is another solution to solve
> multi-party funding pinning rather than wide deployment of fullrbf. This
> was communicated to me a while back, and it was originally dismissed
> because of the privacy trade-offs (and potential slight fees overhead
> cost). However, if widely adopted, they might sound acceptable to
> contracting protocol developers and operators.

Strong NACK.

Zeroconf is, at best, a very marginal usecase. The only services that have
spoken up in support of it are Bitrefill and Muun, and the latter says they=
're
working to get rid of their vulnerability to it. People attempting to make =
it
secure have repeatedly done sybil attacks against the network in attempts to
measure transaction propagation. And of course, if transaction fees and full
mempools are in our near future - as is widely expected - mempool consisten=
cy
will even further diminish making zeroconf even harder to achieve.

Incurring a bunch of engineering costs and harming privacy for the sake of
continuing this nonsense is ridiculous.

If anything, we should be moving to full-RBF so we can undo the privacy cost
that is opt-in-RBF: right now 30% of transactions are having to harm their
privacy by signalling support for it. Full-RBF will allow that wallet
distinguisher to be eliminated.

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

--YpW0Xlw4YoIoJXhD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=TQ3M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YpW0Xlw4YoIoJXhD--