Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6179DC002D for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461D9410A4 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:27:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 461D9410A4 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=E2XJf2TV X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.401 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ycyj-89AAS52 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:27:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:47 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B4A6E40951 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A6E40951 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.151.133.18]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E72F38AF2EF; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:17:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1666894753; bh=9gdctc9Honnne/qP9P1t6R/Txmad1sd76VgyqTeq+dA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=E2XJf2TVQcGHW3WrkUlKeXSGAaV0nkWDPJLrnuxrbCMXIci3SfzJ9qK4xtfWfY1UH 1R9S3bDHwyUCAkGqSBBzrWlzYQQWGbmYiV+Vxe8I4vkANLlNgvwPs2cktyB1UmGe11 AdDlyCDRQu2RaivwrUsawRrsMd6TVspq7swvRvBE= X-Hashcash: 1:25:221027:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::knuCrAY=+lT0lrZS:aRyiW X-Hashcash: 1:25:221027:aj@erisian.com.au::/NLW=bNqMiemBGk2:4nUh X-Hashcash: 1:25:221027:gloriajzhao@gmail.com::9A9grea120zMTkJM:eGh/c From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Anthony Towns Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:17:38 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202210271817.39141.luke@dashjr.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On mempool policy consistency 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:27:04 -0000 More generally, some of the arguments against full RBF seem like debatable reasons (though not fully convincing) to possibly leave it off, and/or disabled by default, but definitely NOT reasons to remove the option and prevent users from deciding for themselves. On Thursday 27 October 2022 15:37:27 Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > "Can I prevent someone else's transaction from propagating" is almost > the entirety of the question with -datacarrier, -datacarriersize and > -permitbaremultisig though: Not necessarily the entirety, no. Even if others would propagate it, you also don't want to waste _your_ bandwidth doing so. This also reveals a difference between the two policies: with RBF, you have _already_ spent resources propagating the first transaction (what this implies is not immediately obvious). Luke