Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C80C002D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3D54193D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:15:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9A3D54193D Authentication-Results: smtp4.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=dR71Fsel X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 GgGNiVrXAvJC for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:15:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:24 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org BEB5E41906 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB5E41906 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641975C0144; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:19 -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=1666303699; x=1666390099; bh=fmqWO6fYR5Ah7UbnpR4FqUObWtQU 2/zrqMYAtoGiNjo=; b=dR71FselWmk34l4SD4rSikzPnZequsM/DtgK1FRHdUQP qwatV07JOyuN2Ydgy8VQ78VZDQrI++a4vY0yixjRJqYMEEH4BmhVt2St7xPM6C1K zmo4yjb5qD/KOHPyPmB8/ZYREZINpIvhhjSSW0RCj2odGm5aC9zTvTpuQzKfivqq cXdBE5LHSdUiq9gY2nxyYbJSEqI04ZKojxtUePgvYSoNxlDVQ3jAHXe3OmqP5zxa HvlP0KllURJm/UnMcyCVR2ClBAJ7uZFlAhSSOeGGyNHxjx7OKGCwLmOeJcqIrago MCkG9yeyAa5KlsL+ejAXm189e5RNxancaJDDtViRPQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeljedgtdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtd erredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhht ohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepledvleelffdtudekudffjefgfeejue ehieelfedtgfetudetgeegveeutefhjedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggu rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epuhhsvghrsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 44FEF204BA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:08:17 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: <0hpdGx-1WbZdG31xaMXGHKTCjJ2-0eB5aIXUdsp3bqI1MlCx6TMZWROwpl1TVI5irrBqRN2-ydM6hmf3M5L-7ZQfazbx66oameiWTHayr6w=@wuille.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Anthony Towns 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:15:48 -0000 --s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > And the > > impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like > > devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to > > them (eg "[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolutely > > cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so"). >=20 > Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main coi= njoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF making = any remarks. FYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last night. He gave me permission to republish our conversation: > Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi? Doesn't really affect us, afaik The cj doesn't signal rbf right now And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed= after successful signing But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get "exploited" So probably doesn't matter Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be al= right We don't yet "use" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / = will eventually I haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation shou= ld be very similar. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNRxs0ACgkQJIFAPaXw kftEYQf/SAcHQgp1r7qr1G+LL9t0WuQWgbZl7VMZDoAR5nJf6efJ1x+MVenCBj02 jbwMxqW31qsTuXEQWVL1gYJdn7mALf+Dumx1lbFhI27qzLIlYvN2mAvKEUw7TW/Z sTaKBVbqKfncE0ZNfueS+A4hOmprNrNZgVFz4oXoqRHC+cf5BNmN8PtiaQxzIyIK yw6eJ0Q1O4fTyN7tBOhXUux54OS5uA4tw0snwcXyfwZ5ZRVOFFDENZveZtcelMme JJiuEukz8Ux0OSKosuHWDen6QPAMKZ0fB6cEi5Gr9+kToJrZ1hyWssXH6XUwLoHI pZhqUPbhjT/ISVmNZGFbFG2uOFx5HQ== =IxWq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s+K7gHw0vrZJpN8L--