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
|
Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD492C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAC48149E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ZyLkSptJLUiQ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.137])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7D8981494
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:15 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1655383641; x=1655642841;
bh=ux5XPmomy2wpUhNpg0vyBZ+l6N3gwb1rdVIBDoT8sZ4=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=HDWDwPgfibsfGIrjbJNmv4SN3zytF3EKUE9iISVl6qAUteg7phu54qsHFpGrgKetx
gS2+pwfrS8nfCoijfYDD4N/ixg4M5azECFhpshe8uKmIgQBF6aKoy7YsN5kD4DRmrI
TPc9eglSmlPRN1npFjL+WkzrEgKq6U/r/kf8zBSGgYjdQIHbM98gTqrHaJYgKZ5wMz
Yoz3sTP+7D6AgmuHjjMbzAePjrWfZj4DHH/0H3mm7f8qQVrC2gWAsiEur9upWFtMqq
zh+6Fclgteky+S23QXIF9XBAfpf8HpfWob5w8pQgMBl6KbALdVd9d4GeNReNLuseWU
NdhZXMLWgVXdg==
To: linuxfoundation.cndm1@dralias.com
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <PR0Y8mPL6L0jZaTNX8_Qlx9qfRgVD6sYxS6tHNyqOzLPnetSBYkfhR_dmzsGpMCJ8olH5VXXDnMzqkief9ExCoCr41tkXyz36QIrQzACF1M=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <165535822613.7.2651335771202625212.47284609@dralias.com>
References: <CALZpt+GOh-7weEypT9JrzcwthZJqHOfj7sf9FMuqi5_FZv0g7w@mail.gmail.com>
<7aP7ve-x6uMLSY2a9ZvpkyEc7uOdWmCGOs-S2ly1klRKzm5kVT4zjC9i0V6k1R0Cr9Xloq6Z4zmZ0LfquOxFtyhrA0RgsfG4qq760T4dfZM=@protonmail.com>
<CAB3F3DuhMQn_fSiXqqzrUMhDm7D=AiKg4nSO71372WzJFCr9EQ@mail.gmail.com>
<dYLEcCTOYwMe7umkzbxdFz-sp5ZwqHU6DcpAg8M8p-ANg8QWSafISIzDXhbGiAHlV6eInfar2ll9oWviwox4SZ7QwfgqXkIbgq_fvcaUz0M=@protonmail.com>
<165535822613.7.2651335771202625212.47284609@dralias.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:11:21 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s
security
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:24 -0000
Hi cndm1,
> If you see a "lack of basic options" and no one has opened a pull request=
for it, it may be for two reasons.
The basic option to disable all RBF policies in a node's mempool if require=
d was removed in [PR #16171][1]. No one has opened a pull request to revert=
this because most of the maintainers and a few reviewers agreed with this =
change. It wasn't required, PR had weak rationale, 2 NACKS and was reopened=
to merge because some reviewers/maintainers believe its a policy that cann=
ot be maintained. One of the reviewers who NACKed it already maintains the =
config option to disable all RBF policies in Bitcoin Knots which is a deriv=
ative of Bitcoin Core.
> However, repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in o=
pen source software development.
I am not demanding anyone to add a few lines of code and open a pull reques=
t. I am _reviewing_ a pull request in an open source project and sharing my=
feedback. Even Antoine and Luke agreed to add it if other reviewers have n=
o issues or I can do it. This option in context with another being added fo=
r a new RBF policy was being discussed in [PR #25353][2] and my earlier ema=
ils in this thread.
Other 'basic options' will be easier to accommodate with `-mempoolreplaceme=
nt` used in [PR #25373] which is unlikely to be merged.
[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16171
[2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353
[3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25373
/dev/fd0
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, June 16th, 2022 at 11:13 AM, linuxfoundation.cndm1--- via bitc=
oin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> alicexbt wrote:
>
> > I do not have issues with multiple RBF policies being tried out and ful=
l-rbf being one of them. My disagreements are with rationale, lack of basic=
options in Bitcoin Core to employ/disable different RBF policies and a few=
arguments made in support for full-rbf. Whether it appears strawman or off=
topic on github, there should be a place to share these disagreements.
>
> Bitcoin Core is open source software, where developers open pull
> requests to try to get them merged after review. If you see a "lack of
> basic options" and no one has opened a pull request for it, it may be
> for two reasons. First, it could be that it just doesn't make sense,
> so no one sees a point in implementing it. Secondly, it may be that it
> isn't on anyone's list of priorities. In the second case, you are
> welcome to share your preference once. Moreover, no one is holding you
> back to implement it yourself and suggest a pull request. However,
> repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in open
> source software development.
>
> cndm1
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
