Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6527EC002D for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8BB60D72 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 2C8BB60D72 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=synonym-to.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@synonym-to.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ja6z7nXE X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rsyqiDjo61Co for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org C58BD60A8C Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58BD60A8C for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id s16so4755558iln.4 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 01:59:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=synonym-to.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QeKcJUNDRKhQVA/VtgRYNDwXxfa/l57epbrymq3OOU4=; b=ja6z7nXEfOiEuUKPsbSWVePtB32r1iQe25FFe5PQFjwE8aPl7NX9WXIeGwXyvABW/G 2F94BIv3AdaQtrr69q1T0qP9MIA3ydJTVLL9bS6lI7GfMqZsdh2Hd6xR01Xqcz5zdn+X vosZn99ZHd7BZEu9zwmNok/y9Q/3Rm5jmVezoYC1yXobTfgJP4tcGQYV7T9nkQiMrOn5 TaslJq2895b8f2i/ZhVumLgOtkWcqfjTvln0yfSxCTc0pIrzqnZWR3LyB4MMktAjU8aQ pBjM9td5ayNRHrfypjZvuMPChZicf2n52IEcWoM29FXYDNukgSl3X10kvgS8w7LZ44oo +cEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=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=QeKcJUNDRKhQVA/VtgRYNDwXxfa/l57epbrymq3OOU4=; b=fn+u/KDsjXgwVdYA3hUloFv7uE+idtE++tlfellABAySSazPHhBsB2NV/7/stK0RbH b2RDh3f1rDRG4MJ+klLexnJHVPmW3hX/2abHaUizGGS9AVdPSzTF5ERR166qJVuLcbTo 5OkkElg6AQw0rPelK122a6z3sHg5+qUqztJ0YUGa7jcK5AWjGnZ09I4UJYmboWeewWol 9EOJc779w3tjJPcAuBr9D93SkzYEgIcOfc/vGNm1cn5diHyk+Dlr+w+Z/FL0lzhpkW/2 8LkmUvK2Oi9bo2Y7FvwSBJ3NJJuboiVIPtvsL+E9Rcu8lzyUZjwFOPikJrtV8vZh8rnK 9NHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmw1+2CPFxiO9HfPxHkirJilm4NitdYmGpiMCUfiZUgBK9ifCeC oqSMY1gaPO07/GlLslZy6sJYGJxYsyLgHtJqQFA7e4i+YZsu2wye X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5tat+rypC6d3B8NA30CAZGKEnm4x6gjONTa8ckd9c69ijpjZQ2vZ6eOK3sjUhoYNp2pn99mu6G/vvw4D6FQnM= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c5c3:0:b0:303:2713:815d with SMTP id s3-20020a92c5c3000000b003032713815dmr19980919ilt.279.1670925587244; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 01:59:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: John Carvalho Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:36 +0000 Message-ID: To: Daniel Lipshitz , bitcoin-dev , Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013069c05efb2ae57" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:07:59 +0000 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: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:59:50 -0000 --00000000000013069c05efb2ae57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 >> > --00000000000013069c05efb2ae57 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why wasn't this solution put in=C2=A0place back then? = Are there problems with the design?

While I still think = there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more doublespending at u= nknowing=C2=A0merchants, after years of FSS protection) I think discussion = of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.

<= div>
--
=
John Carvalho
CEO,=C2=A0Synonym= .to

<= /div>

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

<= /div>
First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here=C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pi= permail/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 FullRBF while retaining=C2= =A0 the significant=C2=A00-conf use case.

This wou= ld seem like a good way forward.


________________________________


=

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman = <nothingmu= ch@woobling.org> wrote:
https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
--00000000000013069c05efb2ae57--