path: root/a9/37d5d55cc944099306672c75d291ddf701c9e7

Return-Path: <sergej@bitrefill.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EAFC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:02:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6E941A3E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:02:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 7A6E941A3E
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bitrefill.com header.i=@bitrefill.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=b header.b=YslRJ5i+
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 nt-c1LOJw9-t
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 30A5B419CC
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30A5B419CC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id a29so4769850lfo.1
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bitrefill.com; s=b;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=66NQptNm7UgCuNvR/tbIRppce+wYnoV1ONLPLPlrDTM=;
 b=YslRJ5i+vU5qOClZuoWRPXZP+fm51wZcv/Q+QXJ/rSdkoQJTXdHjuhSQVayUBwR9cf
 9ugMsN45IiRvy9YZkImGTDbZaxEMSFzPDdV9WXP5kscL3DthTLXTzAFWlk9QKlZbVvCK
 CqKaiFcOKdn8/VKsfFmKgyuQbscc+nJt7sVu7H+hic6AfgE7YgxOHgMk1LXNY1Q7uSvh
 AbyVr2S1fVuYXlDAZXoY0OSZGX9oKj6TA30MB7Nzhu0UNzQFeoBvBydy4KJMZFqSCHrn
 skhus+d0xxCYvOd+F/5CIQVAAmiOShRwQInDWpOhVaVLcAiLaqlzE7Ow5bseNm19nL9J
 a5vw==
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=66NQptNm7UgCuNvR/tbIRppce+wYnoV1ONLPLPlrDTM=;
 b=GCZxlKGTSJZrG9ltBaGlWMThq8KB1pOwyr6hgTI45MlOetCwhFoZ5E32WiFEwvbSFr
 AZSKTHCtx4BsSVfBU2c45R9CD+p7tH/6jHrv7IiwCDiLFknZXnb05X37ftqFrLch9tcB
 LT+bqgxN6Zo2CEnCjpFZfbdn4XkXnwf83gfY+3y5Luzd4djp4d9sSY1gXkHOGuZHrKpZ
 1OS3TOpHgcnuPA/ZIG/MU/TV2mveiz8O/dITahihtKZpxboUCH43IKTyvdaC8FuSa4H2
 PABgOXgSvQC8fXxdfY8SR5hV3X5CVmYTSeerCEC0ZQgsYiC4KJzDNOl2jS2rFd87a9jM
 +ECA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3D/yKmqtkKVQNttsXXhzUolxzprmGcnB9UwmEJIezt1qVQrDZt
 N5CzWkY7sBDCu++/06IAMhPTZrakt2kxb0KMx/arbg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7RRrsHJQ14MvocDVexFcFYsSbQ7qYyNn57YhuK3gnmZCWI8W7aqc4/TZLQdL7bRlRDtavFDwEE01i3Hs2fx5s=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:7613:0:b0:4a4:2243:9b3e with SMTP id
 c19-20020a197613000000b004a422439b3emr6972707lff.158.1666353755976; Fri, 21
 Oct 2022 05:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABZBVTC5kh7ca3KhVkFPdQjnsPhP4Kun1k3K6cPkarrjUiTJpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABZBVTCgiQFtxEyeOU=-SGDQUDthyy7sOgPwiT+OVi35LVivyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1D3OkdsCq2pLduG@erisian.com.au>
 <CABZBVTBupMcBbOUtLbMaEmAiWGsMwisNW+k+bTUJGsUad2=ZZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1Gocf216O+yKqqS@erisian.com.au>
 <CAB3F3DtbxXiHW0GxtaVMMtAo5X7ZcsCPR7odVnwz50qw_3oCLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DtbxXiHW0GxtaVMMtAo5X7ZcsCPR7odVnwz50qw_3oCLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergej Kotliar <sergej@bitrefill.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:02:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CABZBVTBpZOdENv0tg0CZ4yV9J95ZGu0ME9f6gnQQ8WNyt2yePg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b2162b05eb8a37cc"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:11:23 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
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 <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: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:02:41 -0000

--000000000000b2162b05eb8a37cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 23:07, Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:

> A large number of coins/users sit on custodial rails and this would
> essentially encumber protocol developers to those KYC/AML institutions. If
> Binance decides to never support Lightning in favor of BNC-wrapped BTC,
> should this be an issue at all for reasoning about a path forward?
>

This is a big question here, with the caveat that it's not just binance but
in fact the majority of wallets and services that people use with bitcoin
today.
But the question remains as you phrased: At which point do we break
backwards compatibility? Another analogy would be to have sunset the old
P2PKH addresses during rollout of Segwit - it would certainly have led to
Segwit getting rolled out faster. The rbf change actually breaks more
things than that, takes more effort to address than just implementing a new
address format. Previously in the Bitcoin Core process we've chosen to keep
backwards compatibility and only roll out opt-in changes with broad
consensus over them, with the default behavior being to not roll out
changes that are controversial. At which point it's time to back away from
that - I honestly don't know. There is probably such a point, and we should
maybe have some kind of discussion around that topic on a higher level,
just as you phrased it, and I'll paraphrase:
If a majority of bitcoin wallets and services continue using legacy
patterns and features, preventing progress, at which point do we want to
break compatibility with them?

Best,
Sergej


On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:59 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this
>> > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good
>> > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not something
>> > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all?
>> > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will
>> have to
>> > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC
>> to a
>> > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal
>> payment
>> > processor type business.
>>
>> So, what I'm hearing is:
>>
>>  * lightning works great, but is still pretty small
>>  * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF
>>  * opt-in RBF is a pain for two reasons:
>>     - people don't like that it's not treated as zeroconf
>>     - the risk of fiat/BTC exchange rate changes between
>>       now and when the tx actually confirms is worrying
>>       even if it hasn't caused real problems yet
>>
>> (Please correct me if that's too far wrong)
>>
>> Maybe it would be productive to explore this opt-in RBF part a bit
>> more? ie, see if "we" can come up with better answers to some question
>> along the lines of:
>>
>>  "how can we make on-chain payments for goods priced in fiat work well
>>   for payees that opt-in to RBF?"
>>
>> That seems like the sort of thing that's better solved by a collaboration
>> between wallet devs and merchant devs (and protocol devs?), rather than
>> just one or the other?
>>
>> Is that something that we could talk about here? Or maybe it's better
>> done via an optech workgroup or something?
>>
>> If "we'll credit your account in BTC, then work out the USD coversion
>> and deduct that for your purchase, then you can do whatever you like
>> with any remaining BTC from your on-chain payment" is the idea, maybe we
>> should just roll with that design, but make it more decentralised: have
>> the initial payment setup a lightning channel between the customer and
>> the merchant with the BTC (so it's not custodial), but do some magic to
>> allow USD amounts to be transferred over it (Taro? something oracle based
>> so that both parties are confident a fair exchange rate will be used?).
>>
>> Maybe that particular idea is naive, but having an actual problem to
>> solve seems more constructive than just saying "we want rbf" "but we
>> want zeroconf" all the time?
>>
>> (Ideally the lightning channels above would be dual funded so they could
>> be used for routing more generally; but then dual funded channels are
>> one of the things that get broken by lack of full rbf)
>>
>> > > I thought the "normal" avenue for fooling non-RBF zeroconf was to
>> create
>> > > two conflicting txs in advance, one paying the merchant, one paying
>> > > yourself, connect to many peers, relay the one paying the merchant to
>> > > the merchant, and the other to everyone else.
>> > > I'm just basing this off Peter Todd's stuff from years ago:
>> > >
>> https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40ejy8/peter_todd_with_my_doublespendpy_tool_with/cytlhh0/
>> > >
>> https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob/master/doublespend.py
>> > Yeah, I know the list still rehashes a single incident from 10 years
>> ago to
>> > declare the entire practice as unsafe, and ignores real-world data that
>> of
>> > the last million transactions we had zero cases of this successfully
>> > abusing us.
>>
>> I mean, the avenue above isn't easy to exploit -- you have to identify
>> the merchant's node so that they get the bad tx, and you have to connect
>> to many peers so that your preferred tx propogates to miners first --
>> and probably more importantly, it's relatively easy to detect -- if the
>> merchant has a few passive nodes that the attacker doesn't know about
>> it, and uses those to watch for attempted doublespends while it tries
>> to ensure the real tx has propogated widely. So it doesn't surprise me
>> at all that it's not often attempted, and even less often successful.
>>
>> > > > Currently Lightning is somewhere around 15% of our total bitcoin
>> > > > payments.
>> > > So, based on last year's numbers, presumably that makes your bitcoin
>> > > payments break down as something like:
>> > >    5% txs are on-chain and seem shady and are excluded from zeroconf
>> > >   15% txs are lightning
>> > >   20% txs are on-chain but signal rbf and are excluded from zeroconf
>> > >   60% txs are on-chain and seem fine for zeroconf
>> > Numbers are right. Shady is too strong a word,
>>
>> Heh, fair enough.
>>
>> So the above suggests 25% of payments already get a sub-par experience,
>> compared to what you'd like them to have (which sucks, but if you're
>> trying to reinvent both money and payments, maybe isn't surprising). And
>> going full rbf would bump that from 25% to 85%, which would be pretty
>> terrible.
>>
>> > RBF is a strictly worse UX as proven by anyone
>> > accepting bitcoin payments at scale.
>>
>> So let's make it better? Building bitcoin businesses on the lie that
>> unconfirmed txs are safe and won't be replaced is going to bite us
>> eventually; focussing on trying to push that back indefinitely is just
>> going to make everyone less prepared when it eventually happens.
>>
>> > > > For me
>> > > > personally it would be an easier discussion to have when Lightning
>> is at
>> > > > 80%+ of all bitcoin transactions.
>> > > Can you extrapolate from the numbers you've seen to estimate when that
>> > > might be, given current trends?
>> > Not sure, it might be exponential growth, and the next 60% of Lightning
>> > growth happen faster than the first 15%. Hard to tell. But we're likely
>> > talking years here..
>>
>> Okay? Two years is very different from 50 years, and at the moment there's
>> not really any data, so people are just going to go with their gut...
>>
>> If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per
>> bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity; then 15% now would have grown from
>> perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth,
>> getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years.
>>
>> Presumably that's a laughably terrible model, of course. But if we had
>> some actual numbers where we can watch the progress, it might be a lot
>> easier to be patient about waiting for lightning adoption to hit 80%
>> or whatever, and focus on productive things in the meantime?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> aj
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

-- 

Sergej Kotliar

CEO


Twitter: @ziggamon <https://twitter.com/ziggamon>


www.bitrefill.com

Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill> | Blog
<https://www.bitrefill.com/blog/> | Angellist <https://angel.co/bitrefill>

--000000000000b2162b05eb8a37cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 23:07, Greg Sander=
s &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gsanders87@gmail.com">gsanders87@gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>A large number of coins/users sit o=
n custodial rails and this would essentially encumber protocol developers t=
o those KYC/AML institutions. If Binance decides to never support Lightning=
 in favor of BNC-wrapped BTC, should this be an issue at all for reasoning =
about a path forward?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a=
 big question here, with the caveat that it&#39;s not just binance but in f=
act the majority of wallets and services that people use with bitcoin today=
.</div><div>But the question remains as you phrased: At which point do we b=
reak backwards compatibility? Another analogy would be to have sunset the o=
ld P2PKH addresses during rollout of Segwit - it would certainly have led t=
o Segwit getting rolled out faster. The rbf change actually breaks more thi=
ngs than that, takes more effort to address than just implementing a new ad=
dress format. Previously in the Bitcoin Core process we&#39;ve chosen to ke=
ep backwards compatibility and only roll out opt-in changes with broad cons=
ensus over them, with the default behavior being to not roll out changes th=
at are controversial. At which point it&#39;s time to back away from that -=
 I honestly don&#39;t know. There is probably such a point, and we should m=
aybe have some kind of discussion around that topic on a higher level, just=
 as you phrased it, and I&#39;ll paraphrase:=C2=A0</div><div>If a majority =
of bitcoin wallets and services continue using legacy patterns and features=
, preventing progress, at which point do we want to break compatibility wit=
h them?</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Sergej</div><div><br></div=
><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 20, 202=
2 at 3:59 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bit=
coin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; If someone&#39;s going to systematically exploit your store via t=
his<br>
&gt; &gt; mechanism, it seems like they&#39;d just find a single wallet wit=
h a good<br>
&gt; &gt; UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not some=
thing<br>
&gt; &gt; where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all?<=
br>
&gt; Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will ha=
ve to<br>
&gt; do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC =
to a<br>
&gt; custodial account. But this option isn&#39;t available to your normal =
payment<br>
&gt; processor type business.<br>
<br>
So, what I&#39;m hearing is:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* lightning works great, but is still pretty small<br>
=C2=A0* zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF<br>
=C2=A0* opt-in RBF is a pain for two reasons:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - people don&#39;t like that it&#39;s not treated as zeroconf=
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - the risk of fiat/BTC exchange rate changes between<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 now and when the tx actually confirms is worrying<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 even if it hasn&#39;t caused real problems yet<br>
<br>
(Please correct me if that&#39;s too far wrong)<br>
<br>
Maybe it would be productive to explore this opt-in RBF part a bit<br>
more? ie, see if &quot;we&quot; can come up with better answers to some que=
stion<br>
along the lines of:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0&quot;how can we make on-chain payments for goods priced in fiat work=
 well<br>
=C2=A0 for payees that opt-in to RBF?&quot;<br>
<br>
That seems like the sort of thing that&#39;s better solved by a collaborati=
on<br>
between wallet devs and merchant devs (and protocol devs?), rather than<br>
just one or the other?<br>
<br>
Is that something that we could talk about here? Or maybe it&#39;s better<b=
r>
done via an optech workgroup or something?<br>
<br>
If &quot;we&#39;ll credit your account in BTC, then work out the USD covers=
ion<br>
and deduct that for your purchase, then you can do whatever you like<br>
with any remaining BTC from your on-chain payment&quot; is the idea, maybe =
we<br>
should just roll with that design, but make it more decentralised: have<br>
the initial payment setup a lightning channel between the customer and<br>
the merchant with the BTC (so it&#39;s not custodial), but do some magic to=
<br>
allow USD amounts to be transferred over it (Taro? something oracle based<b=
r>
so that both parties are confident a fair exchange rate will be used?).<br>
<br>
Maybe that particular idea is naive, but having an actual problem to<br>
solve seems more constructive than just saying &quot;we want rbf&quot; &quo=
t;but we<br>
want zeroconf&quot; all the time?<br>
<br>
(Ideally the lightning channels above would be dual funded so they could<br=
>
be used for routing more generally; but then dual funded channels are<br>
one of the things that get broken by lack of full rbf)<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt; I thought the &quot;normal&quot; avenue for fooling non-RBF zeroc=
onf was to create<br>
&gt; &gt; two conflicting txs in advance, one paying the merchant, one payi=
ng<br>
&gt; &gt; yourself, connect to many peers, relay the one paying the merchan=
t to<br>
&gt; &gt; the merchant, and the other to everyone else.<br>
&gt; &gt; I&#39;m just basing this off Peter Todd&#39;s stuff from years ag=
o:<br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40ejy8/peter_=
todd_with_my_doublespendpy_tool_with/cytlhh0/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D=
"_blank">https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40ejy8/peter_todd_with_my=
_doublespendpy_tool_with/cytlhh0/</a><br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob=
/master/doublespend.py" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github=
.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob/master/doublespend.py</a><br>
&gt; Yeah, I know the list still rehashes a single incident from 10 years a=
go to<br>
&gt; declare the entire practice as unsafe, and ignores real-world data tha=
t of<br>
&gt; the last million transactions we had zero cases of this successfully<b=
r>
&gt; abusing us.<br>
<br>
I mean, the avenue above isn&#39;t easy to exploit -- you have to identify<=
br>
the merchant&#39;s node so that they get the bad tx, and you have to connec=
t<br>
to many peers so that your preferred tx propogates to miners first --<br>
and probably more importantly, it&#39;s relatively easy to detect -- if the=
<br>
merchant has a few passive nodes that the attacker doesn&#39;t know about<b=
r>
it, and uses those to watch for attempted doublespends while it tries<br>
to ensure the real tx has propogated widely. So it doesn&#39;t surprise me<=
br>
at all that it&#39;s not often attempted, and even less often successful.<b=
r>
<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Currently Lightning is somewhere around 15% of our total bit=
coin<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; payments.<br>
&gt; &gt; So, based on last year&#39;s numbers, presumably that makes your =
bitcoin<br>
&gt; &gt; payments break down as something like:<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 5% txs are on-chain and seem shady and are excluded =
from zeroconf<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A015% txs are lightning<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A020% txs are on-chain but signal rbf and are excluded =
from zeroconf<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A060% txs are on-chain and seem fine for zeroconf<br>
&gt; Numbers are right. Shady is too strong a word,<br>
<br>
Heh, fair enough.<br>
<br>
So the above suggests 25% of payments already get a sub-par experience,<br>
compared to what you&#39;d like them to have (which sucks, but if you&#39;r=
e<br>
trying to reinvent both money and payments, maybe isn&#39;t surprising). An=
d<br>
going full rbf would bump that from 25% to 85%, which would be pretty<br>
terrible.<br>
<br>
&gt; RBF is a strictly worse UX as proven by anyone<br>
&gt; accepting bitcoin payments at scale.<br>
<br>
So let&#39;s make it better? Building bitcoin businesses on the lie that<br=
>
unconfirmed txs are safe and won&#39;t be replaced is going to bite us<br>
eventually; focussing on trying to push that back indefinitely is just<br>
going to make everyone less prepared when it eventually happens.<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; For me<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; personally it would be an easier discussion to have when Lig=
htning is at<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; 80%+ of all bitcoin transactions.<br>
&gt; &gt; Can you extrapolate from the numbers you&#39;ve seen to estimate =
when that<br>
&gt; &gt; might be, given current trends?<br>
&gt; Not sure, it might be exponential growth, and the next 60% of Lightnin=
g<br>
&gt; growth happen faster than the first 15%. Hard to tell. But we&#39;re l=
ikely<br>
&gt; talking years here..<br>
<br>
Okay? Two years is very different from 50 years, and at the moment there&#3=
9;s<br>
not really any data, so people are just going to go with their gut...<br>
<br>
If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per<br>
<a href=3D"http://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity</a>; then 15% now would have gro=
wn from<br>
perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth,<br>
getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years. <br>
<br>
Presumably that&#39;s a laughably terrible model, of course. But if we had<=
br>
some actual numbers where we can watch the progress, it might be a lot<br>
easier to be patient about waiting for lightning adoption to hit 80%<br>
or whatever, and focus on productive things in the meantime?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
aj<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"lt=
r"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line=
-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5=
pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-wei=
ght:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical=
-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Sergej Kotliar</span></p><p dir=3D"lt=
r" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=
=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:tra=
nsparent;font-weight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decorat=
ion:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">CEO</span></p><p dir=
=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><b sty=
le=3D"font-weight:normal"><br></b></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1=
.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-fa=
mily:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;font-weight:=
700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-ali=
gn:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><span style=3D"border:none;display:inline=
-block;overflow:hidden;width:220px;height:80px"><img src=3D"https://lh4.goo=
gleusercontent.com/wU5i7e8boCd7o3P52cUTKrqeTa7jV2dPEXluijGtPBy0f1F0R2_zIg_z=
OQ2kigkbVbSWqLlVdwuBYgo_txXMKkCWdMfBFRNhsDhFpNv1QrRZsD-gPxDui-4l0tZI1Qcjtef=
CDkNG" width=3D"220" height=3D"80" style=3D"margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0=
px;"></span></span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:=
0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;col=
or:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style=
:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;wh=
ite-space:pre-wrap">Twitter: @</span><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/ziggamo=
n" style=3D"text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-siz=
e:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transpare=
nt;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:un=
derline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">ziggamon</span></a><s=
pan style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);backg=
round-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:norm=
al;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">=C2=
=A0</span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margi=
n-bottom:0pt"><b style=3D"font-weight:normal"><br></b></p><p dir=3D"ltr" st=
yle=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href=3D"http:/=
/www.bitrefill.com/" style=3D"text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><span=
 style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);backgrou=
nd-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;=
text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">www=
.bitrefill.com</span></a></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;margi=
n-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href=3D"https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill" =
target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:rg=
b(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-s=
pace:pre-wrap">Twitter</span></a><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family=
:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:b=
aseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> | </span><a href=3D"https://www.bitrefill.co=
m/blog/" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Arial=
;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baselin=
e;white-space:pre-wrap">Blog</span></a><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-=
family:Arial;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-a=
lign:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> | </span><a href=3D"https://angel.co/b=
itrefill" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Aria=
l;color:rgb(102,102,102);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseli=
ne;white-space:pre-wrap">Angellist </span></a><br></p></div></div></div></d=
iv></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000b2162b05eb8a37cc--