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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C2BBCBF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148161.authsmtp.com (outmail148161.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.161])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B35BD0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245])
by punt22.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vBBIJkw0021850;
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:46 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBBIJiIT083939
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:45 GMT (envelope-from pete@petertodd.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A88640188;
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 10A8320C85; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:19:43 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20171211181943.GA9855@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <AE14915B-37DF-4D94-A0B1-E32A26903807@sprovoost.nl>
<201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: dd899e04-de9f-11e7-9f3b-9cb654bb2504
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdwMUHFAXAgsB AmEbWlxeUVR7XWY7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUncaeGZY f3oeWhp7dAwIeX9y Y04sCiRTVU0vdUJg
FhtdQ3AHZDJndWlJ UxJFflAGdgZOLE1H b1B7GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYA50 ekRXdBobREsNEjsx QQxKBS8oBUoeTiFh Z1kgLQdGQS4A
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Matt Corallo <matt@chaincode.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:19:51 -0000
--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:39:32PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2017 7:24:04 PM Sjors Provoost wrote:
> > I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,
> > which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchan=
ts
> > who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> > that wallets honor a no125=3D1 flag.
> >=20
> > So a BIP-21 URI would look like this:
> > bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=3D20.3&no125=3D1
> >=20
> > When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> > default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
>=20
> This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF fl=
ag.=20
> I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly=
=20
> doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of=
the=20
> flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any =
case.
I'll second the objection to a no-RBF flag.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaLsw6AAoJECSBQD2l8JH7vjEH/Avdd65/GfHZuAq/ERJC3tTL
MlF/e2gGDQAjSVOgr4ar7aP1/qDEH3W3vBmv4904ZIndmiU/fiQm3MYR0k6VmpkW
aOoMwcQCXEwssiCGq+Cxfs6nqMQUBcIB+PTg+lzOtfyZFXabISAIluK/+3gzB6HD
igt5J1G8rm6ISWVoxJnhMsovtwF/5oAZgPh+e9LKRUoI8RQMU5GZkwaZOIiZrGda
eBf7e4TYLPOCD5054w6FMQeQJDRc6eubLMKn/Z4CC+Pr+uLn0KLE9s1Km0v5ml+P
+YhjnVySRuvzBAOe0XXOPIhCC90hcsJQl+CTYDzb5Vgb4WJop5U9+ZTSjIwTt+A=
=W3U7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM--
|
