{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-10-12\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, October 12th, 2022 at 1:42 AM, Anthony Towns \u003caj at erisian.com.au\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 04:18:10PM +0000, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Friday, October 7th, 2022 at 5:37 PM, Dario Sneidermanis via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e \u003e Thanks for the fast answer! It seems I missed the link to the PR, sorry for the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e confusion. I'm referring to the opt-in flag for full-RBF from #25353\n\u003e \u003e \u003e (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353).\n\u003e \u003e \u003e It is not clear to me why you believe the merging of this particular pull request poses an immediate risk to you.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Did you see the rest of Dario's reply, bottom-posted after the quoted\n\u003e text? Namely:\n\nOh, my mail client for some reason chose to hide all that. Dario, I'm sorry for missing this; I see now that you were certainly aware of what the PR under consideration did.\n\nFurther comments inline.\n\n\u003e On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 06:37:38PM -0300, Dario Sneidermanis via\n\n\u003e \u003e The question then is whether an opt-in flag for full-RBF will have enough\n\u003e \u003e adoption to get us from 1 to 2. If it isn't, then #25353 won't meet its\n\u003e \u003e objective of allowing nodes participating in multi-party funding protocols\n\u003e \u003e to assume that they can rely on full-RBF. If it is, then zero-conf applications\n\u003e \u003e will be at severe risk (per the logic in the initial email).\n\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e That logic seems reasonably sound to me:\n\u003e \n\u003e - if adding the option does nothing, then there's no point adding it,\n\u003e and no harm in restricting it to test nets only\n\u003e \n\u003e - if adding the option does do something, then businesses using zero-conf\n\u003e need to react immediately, or will go from approximately zero risk of\n\u003e losing funds, to substantial risk\n\u003e \n\u003e (I guess having the option today may allow you to manually switch your\n\u003e node over to supporting fullrbf in future when the majority of the network\n\u003e supports it, without needing to do an additional upgrade in the meantime;\n\u003e but that seems like a pretty weak benefit)\n\nI certainly recognize that adding the flag is a likely step towards, over time, the full RBF policy becoming more widely adopted on the network. That is presumably the reason why people are in favor of having the flag, even default off - including me. I believe that policy's adoption is inevitable eventually, but the speed at which that is achieved is certainly a function of availability and adopted of software which provides the option.\n\nThat said, I think it's a bit of a jump to conclude that the only two options are that either the existence of the flag either has no effect at all, or poses an immediate threat to those relying on its absence. In my view, it is just what I said: a step towards getting full RBF on the network, by allowing experimentation and socializing the notion that developers believe it is time. So I have a hard time imagining how it would change anything *immediately* on the network at large (without things like default on and/or preferential peering, ...), but I still believe it's an important step.\n\nCheers,\n\n-- \nPieter"}