{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-10-20\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 04:29:57PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e \n\u003e Chiming in on this thread as I feel like the real dangers of RBF as default\n\u003e policy aren't sufficiently elaborated here. It's not only about the\n\u003e zero-conf (I'll get to that) but there is an even bigger danger called the\n\u003e american call option, which risks endangering the entirety of BIP21 \"Scan\n\u003e this QR code with your wallet to buy this product\" model that I believe\n\u003e we've all come to appreciate. Specifically, in a scenario with high\n\u003e volatility and many transactions in the mempools (which is where RBF would\n\u003e come in handy), a user can make a low-fee transaction and then wait for\n\u003e hours, days or even longer, and see whether BTCUSD moves. If BTCUSD moves\n\u003e up, user can cancel his transaction and make a new - cheaper one. The\n\nI just checked this, and Bitrefill accepts transactions with RBF enabled.\n\n\u003e biggest risk in accepting bitcoin payments is in fact not zeroconf risk\n\u003e (it's actually quite easily managed), it's FX risk as the merchant must\n\u003e commit to a certain BTCUSD rate ahead of time for a purchase. Over time\n\u003e some transactions lose money to FX and others earn money - that evens out\n\u003e in the end. But if there is an _easily accessible in the wallet_ feature to\n\u003e \"cancel transaction\" that means it will eventually get systematically\n\n...and I checked this with Electrum on Android, which has a handy \"Cancel\nTransaction\" feature in the UI to easily cancel a payment. Which I did. You\nshould have a pending payment from this email, and unsurprisingly I don't have\nmy gift card. :)\n\nThe ship has already sailed on this. I'd suggest accepting Lightning, which\ndrastically shortens the time window involved.\n\nFWIW, fixedfloat.com already deals with this call option risk by charging a\nhigher fee (1% vs 0.5%) for conversions where the exact destination amount has\nbeen locked in; the default is for the exact destination amount to be picked at\nthe moment of confirmation.\n\n\u003e abused. A risk of X% loss on many payments that's easy to systematically\n\u003e Bitrefill currently processes 1500-2000 onchain payments every day. For us,\n\u003e a world where bitcoin becomes de facto RBF by default, means that we would\n\nElectrum is RBF by default. So does Green Wallet, and many other wallets,  as\nwell as many exchanges. Most of those wallets/exchanges don't even have a way\nto send a transaction without RBF. This ship has sailed.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/1496e29c/attachment.sig\u003e"}