{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub18plyg5mfmzwlvkcx0fhudfll3x5phjvvlglw4dgj6t5ehyp87ttqzv2ml4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub18plyg5mfmzwlvkcx0fhudfll3x5phjvvlglw4dgj6t5ehyp87ttqzv2ml4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e \u003e So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not technically\n\u003e \u003e prevented is bad for the network and creating systemic risks of failure,\n\u003e\n\u003e Well it is actually; that's why myself, Wladimir van der Laan, and\n\u003e Gregory Maxwell all specifically¹ called Chainalysis's actions a sybil\n\u003e attack.\n\u003e\n\u003e The Bitcoin P2P network is resilliant to failure when the chance of any\n\u003e one node going down is uncorrelated with others. For instance if you\n\u003e accidentally introduced a bug in your nodes that failed to relay\n\u003e transactions/blocks properly, you'd simultaneously be disrupting a large\n\u003e portion of the network all at once.\n\u003e\n\nThis is exactly what your RBF patch is doing. By your own logic, nodes on\nthe network should be allowed to relay (or not relay) whatever they wish.\n\n\n\u003e How many nodes is Coinbase connecting too? What software are they\n\u003e running? What subnets are they using? In particular, are they all on one\n\u003e subnet or multiple?\n\u003e\n\nWe're running about a dozen nodes running regular Bitcoin Core in various\nsubnets. We aren't doing anything particularly out of the ordinary here.\nNothing that would fall under your definition of a sybil attack or harmful\nto the network.\n\n\u003e \u003e You know, you're creating an interesting bit of game theory here: if I'm\n\u003e \u003e \u003e a miner who doesn't already have a mining contract, why not implement\n\u003e \u003e \u003e full-RBF to force Coinbase to offer me one? One reason might be because\n\u003e \u003e \u003e other miners with such a contract - a majority - are going to be asked\n\u003e \u003e \u003e by Coinbase to reorg you out of the blockchain, but then we have a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e situation where a single entity has control of the blockchain.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e If someone did enter into contracts with miners to mine certain\n\u003e \u003e transactions, and had a guarantee that the miners would not build on\n\u003e \u003e previous blocks which included double spends, then they would only need\n\u003e \u003e contracts with 51% of the network anyway. So it wouldn't really matter if\n\u003e \u003e you were a small time miner and wanted to run full-RBF.\n\u003e\n\u003e But of course, you'd never 51% the network right? After all it's not\n\u003e possible to guarantee that your miner won't mine double-spends, as there\n\u003e is no single consensus definition of which transaction came first, nor\n\u003e can there be.\n\u003e\n\u003e Or do you see things differently? If I'm a small miner should I be\n\u003e worried my blocks might be rejected by the majority with hashing power\n\u003e contracts because I'm unable to predict which transactions Coinbase\n\u003e believes should go in the blockchain?\n\u003e\n\nYou seem so concerned that we are actively trying to harm or control the\nnetwork. We're simply trying to drive bitcoin adoption by making it easy\nfor people to spend their bitcoin with merchants online. The problems we\nface are no different from other merchant processors, or small independent\nmerchants accepting online or point-of-sale payments.\n\nWe've historically had relatively little interest in what miners were doing\n(until RBF came out) - for the most part it didn't affect our business.\nHowever, most large merchants would be simply uninterested in accepting\nbitcoin if we forced their customers to wait 10-60 minutes for their\npayments to confirm. Many have inventory management systems which can not\neven place items on hold that long.\n\nIf full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively\nharm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS\nmerchants to accept bitcoin payments at all. I do not see a single benefit\nto running full-RBF.\n\nFWIW, I'm fine with the first-seen-safe RBF, that seems like a sensible\naddition and a good way to allow fees to be added or increased on existing\ntransactions, without harming existing applications of bitcoin.\n\nAdrian\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/67e0dce0/attachment.html\u003e"}