Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACF1C002D for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B9F41685 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:00:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 92B9F41685 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=Up8i7R3g X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ljHTJ902kHQY for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:00:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 23CB94159D Received: from mail-yw1-x1136.google.com (mail-yw1-x1136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1136]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23CB94159D for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x1136.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-3b5d9050e48so192482327b3.2 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 06:00:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vcGBT5CZJwPjerD1gBG1qO/ysxV1awrwoRL4tk3TPNw=; b=Up8i7R3gGmjWVzN0Rg5BEPOgJg5MWB/x340wNxZ4IJ69mlPJSKhogaqJ0xiPqPFSsQ hy0SOAN5yX4Hgdq1F10QGRJtcvSz0wSVmsZO+SapFLQDhe1YDJsb5c8Lc/bf8oqcd/d2 9gfsX3h+qD+AzcJxBlIGnoNOw0uC407HWNhOwXpdF/fG3zLpRxWXcUhUhl0G3X6l22yI 7QDLCWlPVnw9ECe9ws83Ro4zEwu42OPVBvGt+T71PByd4lMCURtnrcFC+SIhaocjutq6 AaGFxseFoi76pJJuO8Z0CO6ZdHxbIe2h8nesh8YvblGuGauZeub0zwwvpzcI+YrZJUg9 +2gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vcGBT5CZJwPjerD1gBG1qO/ysxV1awrwoRL4tk3TPNw=; b=rY5/t5q7z7fKg/AW9/1eq/+126I1WD5cdEmYO6/3VemfIi2rRGazcX2BBM++4yK+PI Z0YNI7Moq3u19NiEZjxUtFw1sgDqEKY72w+5UJxdidLgcdwySXaNUgl/3Sx5XbBhUR5S n9SYyHepc2e60wvehfX237fA3edLnbPWncYovt9KJe1H9Jza0dJ4WEU0JgJj7NQPOudu O/aUUazbWnAH9G3qLwAnegu7TxDkehADoUWSR1QP+uxqY0X512CmEvhWlFSdw113GVYF MIF4Q7A5RqYmG1QReO6xHUwcRQ4gKxeW2TgkN+Rdk/DQg0gqYWTsL1aYNwv87Bnm5TuB wdoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmveZxFtmsNyEt6btR07Gkp8lqCHzRnt/IfxxWYO/dRw7KpBJzo R72bAglWr28V9HdAc9GG7nCsfawgPhrlCAKI3TUJPy7usGCCZw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4GqsH/vVQ4UuW4UmZ8AfoJoK2KQ9uodhT49QUEKusDnstb9ZYTOd96YlAdEGTavijDJoOTNrVugw7IzieWNzA= X-Received: by 2002:a81:c86:0:b0:3f0:3355:86f2 with SMTP id 128-20020a810c86000000b003f0335586f2mr17543732ywm.88.1670940037779; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 06:00:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lucas Ontivero Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 11:00:26 -0300 Message-ID: To: Daniel Lipshitz , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000064975205efb60b10" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:01:51 +0000 Cc: John Carvalho Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for Full RBF to not exclude Zero Conf use case 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: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:00:40 -0000 --00000000000064975205efb60b10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Some wallets like Electrum would be affected by that because they use RBF to batch transactions so, outputs cannot be exactly the same as before. On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as > far as I can tell this is well developed and ready. > > The reasons I can find for not being adopted are listed here - > https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not First-seen-safe > Replace-by-fee > > Those reasons do not seem pertinent here - given OptinRBF already exists > as an option and the added benefit of continuing to be able to support > 0-conf. > > ________________________________ > > Daniel Lipshitz > GAP600| www.gap600.com > Phone: +44 113 4900 117 > Skype: daniellipshitz123 > Twitter: @daniellipshitz > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho wrote: > >> Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with >> the design? >> >> While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like >> more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) >> I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering. >> >> -- >> John Carvalho >> CEO, Synonym.to >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being >>> aware of it. >>> >>> First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >>> by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route >>> which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case. >>> >>> This would seem like a good way forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000064975205efb60b10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Some wallets like Electrum would be affected by = that because they use RBF to batch transactions so, outputs cannot be exact= ly the same as before.

=
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:09 AM Dani= el Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I dont = think there was anything technical with the implementation and as far as I = can tell this is well developed and ready.

The reasons I= can find for not being adopted are listed here -=C2=A0https://bitcoincore.org= /en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not First-seen-safe Replace-by-fee=C2=A0=

=C2=A0Those reasons do not seem pertinent=C2=A0he= re - given OptinRBF already exists as an option and the added benefit of co= ntinuing=C2=A0to be able to support 0-conf.

________________________________

Daniel Lipshitz
GAP600|=C2=A0www.gap600.com
+44 113 4900 117
Skype: daniellipshitz123
Twitter: @daniellipshitz


On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho <john@synonym.to> wrot= e:
Why wasn't this solution put in=C2=A0place back then? Are there pro= blems with the design?

While I still think there are unh= ealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more doublespending at unknowing=C2= =A0merchants, after years of FSS protection) I think discussion of this FSS= -RBF feature is worth considering.

--
John Carvalho
CEO,=C2=A0Sy= nonym.to


On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com> w= rote:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not bei= ng aware of it.

First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detail= ed here=C2=A0https://lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html=C2=A0= by Peter Todd=C2=A0 = seems to be a very suitable option and route which=C2=A0balances Ful= lRBF while retaining=C2=A0 the significant=C2=A00-conf use case.
=
This would seem like a good way forward.



________________________________=



On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at = 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org> wrote:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Ma= y/008248.html
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000064975205efb60b10--