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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67D23C83
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:40:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B362411
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:40:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265::71])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0987A38A0C52;
Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171205:sjors@sprovoost.nl::Sa6ips3imAG/nc3X:bBP4j
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171205:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::tcnHbCsAYYv8qHce:bCrY5
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171205:matt@chaincode.com::ZLeQ5ko11a9G1ECf:am10D
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:39:32 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.37; x86_64; ; )
References: <AE14915B-37DF-4D94-A0B1-E32A26903807@sprovoost.nl>
In-Reply-To: <AE14915B-37DF-4D94-A0B1-E32A26903807@sprovoost.nl>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201712051939.33238.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:40:17 -0000
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 merchants
> who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.
>
> So a BIP-21 URI would look like this:
> bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.3&no125=1
>
> When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF flag.
I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly
doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of the
flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any case.
> P.S. I'd similarly suggest adding a bech32 param, but that's for another
> discussion
Bech32 addresses are just normal addresses. What need is there for a param?
Luke
|
