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
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FBBC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F3F4163E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:50 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org E8F3F4163E
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=fm2 header.b=EfjJldiR
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 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_H2=-0.001,
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 t6Cht6fBZHAT
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 831224148D
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[64.147.123.24])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831224148D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43])
by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5075C320051E;
Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:41:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:41:47 -0500
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=
fm2; t=1670967706; x=1671054106; bh=SgK7dxkGeWnV1zhKqHO1kL3W2rFN
/DHpFyDTEvgWt8Q=; b=EfjJldiRiCmZd19hKqke1EoO1uLvEU0VxvYshggma9A0
Y7QjD9TgrPWVBHuH2Z7OcNIEp1qvdkOAeliL1RBiQxhyzmD3DO8Uy7EzdqA0aFIX
mN+edYhZQrIvBWgS6hZMBJYdm595os9pq3os2maT9rzY2z+eRrwoqvfUxca/yNQC
vF2HUCF1s9UX0BWKvR/zGIetwSQ3FhK3DbNo/Cml/atGx7gFdVnA0W9WqV0g3zMF
qOXZlFPWNnZGkpeS4HKIFMHmaHGYbYejgJe9KZUj/bUFDmSSQrtNUxGjcy6oAhY5
UcOrVeFmdlq64zm7BBfc1NlYR0CUYVhY/1bB9kUR4Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:mvGYYztFwWbaolUxp8OUDbGQOok9N54GtXTnl-Ml0L0lM7t1g4sNaA>
<xme:mvGYY0eY16jablBtiSYpDRQ_eXQ3pgJTdL0u8wtCsTHzIsgC-EMbE4LjvkI_tvL4Q
fGChVdW53lZIiY7Bxg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:mvGYY2z4b4Fk4B0gYHewOoWoYAyZX5cTgWoDI7FFLAz8X3PilDorpK4kbXWW>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedugdejkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghr
ucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg
hrnhepjeeffeektdduudfffffghfeffeffuedvueehheevieeghfeijeekueetueefgeff
necuffhomhgrihhnpegsihhttghoihhntghorhgvrdhorhhgpdhlihhnuhigfhhouhhnug
grthhiohhnrdhorhhgpdhgrghpiedttddrtghomhdpphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghen
ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvghtvg
esphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:mvGYYyM6UabpdMkrQXn_c5IKHJN-kN-wb9wyUJF_CFXJdxn-9DmIfw>
<xmx:mvGYYz_3WPnWJwS229ryRkRkcYo-4lgBQF9cWfvog6AKsw6OzzE_mw>
<xmx:mvGYYyV8_imyuDLWhpL3aw0bBHO9_EzXXtvQO-DVaDhOSNnXUf9JEQ>
<xmx:mvGYY_a76I8D0kyfqjUsJ2JAhI4jRXr8kPrm7Vgl1kV-ArrcOj81xg>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue,
13 Dec 2022 16:41:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7494A5F81C; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:41:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:41:44 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
Message-ID: <Y5jxmItJIpIUVY+x@petertodd.org>
References: <CACkWPs_F94t9Q8TfyYYGxQANUT78SWFGkTOh6qRwnt=6ct7aig@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAQdECAspoRJRz7j1ubAe=Cen==AVF5bm-Q2=0TiKc7NtbU65A@mail.gmail.com>
<CACkWPs_4pjTo50=S86KPEznBs0PU7rd30rBGHq2Q5=6n6hYMgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHTn92wH17Z+p5cFOLpzsVUuTf4-nZc7tOjQr+_xjSU5groa0Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CACkWPs9VawCYt7maiNqzafkFnHTiGJQkXMT4VXQQcG-rE2TTNw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pfXsSGTCPVXVKpPF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACkWPs9VawCYt7maiNqzafkFnHTiGJQkXMT4VXQQcG-rE2TTNw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>
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 <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: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:51 -0000
--pfXsSGTCPVXVKpPF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:33:00PM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
> I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as
> far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.
There are lots of problems with my first-seen-safe proposal. The only reaso=
n I
proposed it in 2015 was as a political compromise.
> 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
>=20
> 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.
First-seen-safe is incompatible with the #1 reason why mempoolfullrbf was
merged into Bitcoin Core: multi-party transactions.
With multi-party transactions such as coinjoins and multi-party lightning
channels, we want full-rbf behavior because it avoids accidental double-spe=
nds
holding up progress in these protocols. Second, for intentional DoS attacks=
, it
makes those attacks much more expensive by forcing the attacker to use
tx-pinning.
Nothing less than full-rbf without restritions on outputs works for this
use-case. The only compromise possible is Antoine Riard's spent-nVersion
signalling proposal=C2=B9, which has a significant, negative, privacy impac=
t=C2=B2. It
also increases costs and time in many cases, as you often have to create new
outputs to flag full-rbf.
Thus we have a political tradeoff between a handful of centralized services
such as yours that benefit from the first-seen status quo, and the much lar=
ger
group of users that use Lightning and coinjoins. We've already been through
such a political tradeoff before with the blocksize debate - again, the
centralized payment providers lost the debate.
Anyway, my advice to you is to either change your business model to make us=
e of
scalable instant payment tech such as Lightning. Or give up on Bitcoin and
expand your business with other chians, such as BSV=C2=B3. The fact is some=
hashing
power is already beginning to run with full-rbf=E2=81=B4, and I fully expec=
t that % to
increase over time.
1) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/02=
1144.html
2) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/02=
1250.html
3) https://www.gap600.com/bitcoin/gap600-supports-bsv/
4) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/02=
1260.html
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--pfXsSGTCPVXVKpPF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=gOFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--pfXsSGTCPVXVKpPF--
|