{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1w30zwgl8947760cd62fawy9hqmxnq24cga5c8s5j6j7m07w96dnqzjzhn2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1w30zwgl8947760cd62fawy9hqmxnq24cga5c8s5j6j7m07w96dnqzjzhn2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-06-16\n📝 Original message:Hi cndm1,\n\n\u003e If you see a \"lack of basic options\" and no one has opened a pull request for it, it may be for two reasons.\n\nThe basic option to disable all RBF policies in a node's mempool if required was removed in [PR #16171][1]. No one has opened a pull request to revert this because most of the maintainers and a few reviewers agreed with this change. It wasn't required, PR had weak rationale, 2 NACKS and was reopened to merge because some reviewers/maintainers believe its a policy that cannot be maintained. One of the reviewers who NACKed it already maintains the config option to disable all RBF policies in Bitcoin Knots which is a derivative of Bitcoin Core.\n\n\u003e However, repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in open source software development.\n\nI am not demanding anyone to add a few lines of code and open a pull request. I am _reviewing_ a pull request in an open source project and sharing my feedback. Even Antoine and Luke agreed to add it if other reviewers have no issues or I can do it. This option in context with another being added for a new RBF policy was being discussed in [PR #25353][2] and my earlier emails in this thread.\n\nOther 'basic options' will be easier to accommodate with `-mempoolreplacement` used in [PR #25373] which is unlikely to be merged.\n\n[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16171\n[2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353\n[3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25373\n\n\n/dev/fd0\n\nSent with Proton Mail secure email.\n\n------- Original Message -------\nOn Thursday, June 16th, 2022 at 11:13 AM, linuxfoundation.cndm1--- via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\n\n\n\u003e alicexbt wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e I do not have issues with multiple RBF policies being tried out and full-rbf being one of them. My disagreements are with rationale, lack of basic options in Bitcoin Core to employ/disable different RBF policies and a few arguments made in support for full-rbf. Whether it appears strawman or offtopic on github, there should be a place to share these disagreements.\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin Core is open source software, where developers open pull\n\u003e requests to try to get them merged after review. If you see a \"lack of\n\u003e basic options\" and no one has opened a pull request for it, it may be\n\u003e for two reasons. First, it could be that it just doesn't make sense,\n\u003e so no one sees a point in implementing it. Secondly, it may be that it\n\u003e isn't on anyone's list of priorities. In the second case, you are\n\u003e welcome to share your preference once. Moreover, no one is holding you\n\u003e back to implement it yourself and suggest a pull request. However,\n\u003e repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in open\n\u003e source software development.\n\u003e\n\u003e cndm1\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"}