{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vjzmc45k8dgujppapp2ue20h3l9apnsntgv4c0ukncvv549q64gsz4x8dd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vjzmc45k8dgujppapp2ue20h3l9apnsntgv4c0ukncvv549q64gsz4x8dd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-12-01\n📝 Original message:Hi Daniel,\n\n\u003eFrom my understanding of GAP600, you're operating a zero-conf risk analysis\nbusiness, which is integrated and leveraged by payment processors/liquidity\nproviders and merchants. A deployment of fullrbf by enough full-node\noperators and a subset of the mining hashrate would lower the cost of\ndouble-spend attack by lamda users, therefore increasing the risk exposure\nof your users. This increased risk exposure could lead you to alter the\nacceptance of incoming zero-conf transactions, AFAICT in a similar\nreasoning as exposed by Bitrefill earlier this year [0].\n\nAbout the statistics you're asking for considerations, few further\nquestions, on those 1.5M transactions per month, a) how many are\nBitcoin-only (as I understand to be multi-cryptocurrencies), b) how many\nare excluded from zeroconf due to factors like RBF, long-chain of\nunconfirmed ancestors or too high-value and c) what has been the average\nfeerate (assuming a standard size of 200 bytes) ?\n\nMy personal position on fullrbf is still the same as expressed in #26525\n[1]. As a community, I think we still don't have conceptual consensus on\ndeploying full-rbf, neither to remove it. In the direction of removing the\ncurrent option from Bitcoin Core, I think the prerequisite to address are\nthe qualification of enough economic flows at risk and the presence of a\nsizable loss in miners income. Beyond that, I think there is still the open\nquestion if we (we, as the Bitcoin protocol development community, with all\nits stakeholders) should restrain user choice in policy settings in the\nname of preserving mining income and established use-case stability.\n\nTo recall, the original technical motivation of this option, and the wider\nsmoother deployment was to address a DoS vector affecting another class of\nuse-case: multi-party transactions like coinjoin and contracting protocols\nlike Lightning [2] [3]. All of them expect to generate economic flows and\ncorresponding mining income. Since then, alternative paths to solve this\nDoS vector have been devised, all with their own trade-offs and conceptual\nissues [4] [5].\n\nBest,\nAntoine\n\n[0]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021070.html\n[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1319499006\n[2]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020557.html\n[3]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html\n[4]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021135.html\n[5]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-November/021144.html\n\nLe jeu. 1 déc. 2022 à 07:32, Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e a écrit :\n\n\u003e HI All\n\u003e\n\u003e I am the CEO of GAP600. We guarantee zero confirmed Bitcoin and other\n\u003e crypto  transactions, BTC is a primary part of our business. Our guarantee\n\u003e enables our customers to recognise zero-conf deposits. We reimburse our\n\u003e clients value of the trx should we get it wrong and a transaction we\n\u003e confirmed gets double spent.\n\u003e\n\u003e Should full RBF become default enabled and significantly adopted this\n\u003e would have a major impact on the capacity to accept zerof confs on mainnet.\n\u003e With the end result being this use case will be forced to move to a\n\u003e different chain, with lightning being just another option.\n\u003e\n\u003e I wanted to share some statistics about how significant this use case is.\n\u003e GAP600 clients are primarily payment processors and non custodial\n\u003e liquidity providers; you can see some of our clients on our site\n\u003e www.gap600.com. There are also merchants who have developed their own\n\u003e tools so GAP600 statistics are only a subset of the full use case.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do not know of any wallet, exchange or custodian who accepts zero conf\n\u003e without having some sort of solution in place. The market seems to be fully\n\u003e aware of the risks of zero-conf. The opt-RBF seems to be a solution which\n\u003e gives a clear free choice for actors.\n\u003e\n\u003e Statistics for consideration as a sample of the zero conf use case -\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e    1. As of end of Nov 2022 - GAP600 has processed i.e responded to circa\n\u003e    15M transactions\n\u003e    2. These transactions have a cumulative value of 2.3B USD value.\n\u003e    3. We currently are seeing circa 1.5M transactions queired per month.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e It's a sizable amount of trxs on mainet and we are by no means the full\n\u003e market of platforms accepting zero-conf.  I realise there are other\n\u003e considerations which BTC has,  I would urge you to take into account the\n\u003e major risk being placed on this significant market share when deciding to\n\u003e make this feature default enabled and encouraging full adoption.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thank you for your consideration\n\u003e Daniel\n\u003e ________________________________\n\u003e\n\u003e Daniel Lipshitz\n\u003e GAP600| www.gap600.com\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\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221201/ef417993/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}