Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA82C002D for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeelkedgudefkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvght vghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepledvleelffdtudekudffjefgfeejueehieelfedtgfetudetgeegveeutefh jedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuhhsvghrsehpvghtvghrthhouggu rdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: 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 To: Sergej Kotliar , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="z3YuGc7Z5PFA8I40" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Anthony Towns , Greg Sanders 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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--