1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
|
Return-Path: <user@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA82C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A3F60BB2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 92A3F60BB2
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=uLYpIChk
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 mTONRxupKv3x
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 97BEF60671
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.25])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97BEF60671
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AEE5C0129;
Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:43:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id
:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id
:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to
:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
fm3; t=1666381414; x=1666467814; bh=Tkfgws66dAAFHQ5zFoglI/cpNgbE
uu1iFcUzzi2WnlE=; b=uLYpIChktzy9J2O5SFNhFIL/PpaTRTPZRteFjGWP+1Yi
1I+IL1xLtsB3ssxgCeDiWRS8chlH0zYf5DqFZxQu9036ccaZX2CYst+XU+Y28Spk
gjfiYBs3jeBq5umIbOcOV1HFLTUQQ7iCmd+Gy57CrWk4hyxFcACEQgZhlkTB+kZz
3eTalFyxFFBAibO4/mLhIprbjDCPBeps65COM+w98flxr/UQJYCFY7ntqKqFq860
kq0++Qoy3KktbwVhHLTL2XtwIjc5fAQXonxRQSQxmRrTUtX14nnfVli1zaKHf0PG
4ftHSMeBLLUfwhMQb7NnxXd4SRr+1+puQeTqC9k8XA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ZvZSY9CkvV8Gg0dq6XaRUXDoZWl8B52EdZaLNRlA4c6eSH2tEmMncA>
<xme:ZvZSY7goiL3RC-kASxHVyzD0Haiw1HwBThc5LnFISi1f7uTFXPb6QeDAkvpRt0bUL
Sjb-Cdktu7UYenJjAE>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:ZvZSY4n-jhigQWO0RZWzJ1lK3BP9R4m5ghFmt6Wpns4qb9myEvixkAPg4HUvM1A6YK8OKU2v_wrlVEMsIgITWVYBD57v>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeelkedgudefkecutefuodetggdotefrod
ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh
necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd
enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvght
vghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth
htvghrnhepledvleelffdtudekudffjefgfeejueehieelfedtgfetudetgeegveeutefh
jedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih
iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuhhsvghrsehpvghtvghrthhouggu
rdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ZvZSY3ziwKZlrHtXQyIVTGzd61zgygOULqXzxzEszxP8xWFqr21pWw>
<xmx:ZvZSYySbL9qbSaVTmJTIuoDZmRmRK4o9iOUkpV9qUc7MjFQqJSV5Yg>
<xmx:ZvZSY6YCvmkJm2VLwZK1JImyIkESkDfJFNQEy-mnPhePWX3053zGfA>
<xmx:ZvZSY_KKp0enC_kxWHPsnXeN4iFovFKMbwpLEglVD1ywH2ylRO3CWQ>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri,
21 Oct 2022 15:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D8245204BA; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:43:33 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Sergej Kotliar <sergej@bitrefill.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y1L2ZSklbwm41f4u@petertodd.org>
References: <CABZBVTC5kh7ca3KhVkFPdQjnsPhP4Kun1k3K6cPkarrjUiTJpA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABZBVTCgiQFtxEyeOU=-SGDQUDthyy7sOgPwiT+OVi35LVivyA@mail.gmail.com>
<Y1D3OkdsCq2pLduG@erisian.com.au>
<CABZBVTBupMcBbOUtLbMaEmAiWGsMwisNW+k+bTUJGsUad2=ZZg@mail.gmail.com>
<Y1Gocf216O+yKqqS@erisian.com.au>
<CAB3F3DtbxXiHW0GxtaVMMtAo5X7ZcsCPR7odVnwz50qw_3oCLg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABZBVTBpZOdENv0tg0CZ4yV9J95ZGu0ME9f6gnQQ8WNyt2yePg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="z3YuGc7Z5PFA8I40"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABZBVTBpZOdENv0tg0CZ4yV9J95ZGu0ME9f6gnQQ8WNyt2yePg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>, Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:43:36 -0000
--z3YuGc7Z5PFA8I40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 02:02:24PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 23:07, Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> > A large number of coins/users sit on custodial rails and this would
> > essentially encumber protocol developers to those KYC/AML institutions.=
If
> > Binance decides to never support Lightning in favor of BNC-wrapped BTC,
> > should this be an issue at all for reasoning about a path forward?
> >
>=20
> This is a big question here, with the caveat that it's not just binance b=
ut
> in fact the majority of wallets and services that people use with bitcoin
> today.
> But the question remains as you phrased: At which point do we break
> backwards compatibility? Another analogy would be to have sunset the old
> P2PKH addresses during rollout of Segwit - it would certainly have led to
> Segwit getting rolled out faster. The rbf change actually breaks more
> things than that, takes more effort to address than just implementing a n=
ew
> address format. Previously in the Bitcoin Core process we've chosen to ke=
ep
RBF certainly does not break more things than depreciating an entire address
standard. P2PKH addresses are still used by old wallets, and it's often not
worth the risk to upgrade to new software for old coins kept offline by
ordinary users. I personally have used P2PKH addresses in the past few mont=
hs.
Zeroconf on the other hand has never worked reliably, so you can't even cla=
im
it's a "supported feature". And the fact is, it breaks all the time because
every time miners change their acceptance rules - eg with new releases - we
break it every single time we do a new release with different you can easily
exploit zeroconf.
Frankly, the fact that we didn't widely implement full-rbf sooner is quite
unfortunate, as Bitrefill, Muun, etc. should have never been using it in the
first place.
> If a majority of bitcoin wallets and services continue using legacy
> patterns and features, preventing progress, at which point do we want to
> break compatibility with them?
It's clearly false to claim that the "majority of bitcoin wallets and servi=
ces"
are using zeroconf. A tiny minority are attempting to use it, with the vast
majority of previous users having given up on it.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--z3YuGc7Z5PFA8I40
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNS9mEACgkQJIFAPaXw
kfswAQf+N02P/8Sa7nI06AeyM8ly7NBGwvAPy50Qr+z1xxVOYZsX7Eo2g11+TIPv
7rQQtwpSM289eUw+M33ujFwywATc0m+G2Ow9+ZVXdy+20NxKz7MMOWfOvXKAKE2P
ET6p7/lorReqY3MCUU0mlq2NJA7BK2UpU0fecCQ282cX5yQ4qCog4Ejhf2JIn3hO
uhrFFZsi0ppJ3Q0VM+qMZcyELAfOOY7VEanIk6dSlnZswyP6lRbr+gbupsMXXwvR
ZNat0nTSOAnaJZ+l0p7Ws6kG6Jt3/Gw+r90kI+fYuqAZf0f0IBz6AioMboc04WYr
H6yxQja4ekkQRCV7lsiO4xVPW6bYAw==
=p7Sd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--z3YuGc7Z5PFA8I40--
|
