{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-10-15\n📝 Original message:Peter,\n\nYour argument is totally hypocritical and loses when comparing quantities.\n\nEnforcing RBF is observably more \"harmful to Bitcoin\" (whatever that\nmeans...) when it tries to \"risk-manage propagation\" of replacements, as\nthere more Bitcoiners that want to mutually utilize 0conf than users that\nwant to replace transactions.\n\nSpending bitcoin is a use case, so replacing txns reduces utility and makes\ncommitments less certain.\n\nNo one here arguing for 0conf is suggesting reorgs, so please do not\nsensationalize with claims of reorgs or \"harm.\"\n\nTake note that it is RBF proponents that have changed Bitcoin code and seek\nto continue to change Bitcoin, RBF that seeks to reduce commercial utility\n-- but 0conf proponents are not asking for changes to Bitcoin, not\nsuggesting soft or hard forks, etc. We are asking you to stop breaking\nthings by adding features for minority speculative interests.\n\n-John\n\nOn Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 5:04 PM Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of\n\u003e gaslighting\n\u003e \u003e happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants\n\u003e \u003e wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.\n\u003e\n\u003e The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.\n\u003e Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation\n\u003e _is_ an\n\u003e attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few\n\u003e merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.\n\u003e\n\u003e ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make\n\u003e deals\n\u003e with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out\n\u003e double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely\n\u003e harmful.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\n-- \n--\nJohn Carvalho\nCEO, Synonym.to \u003chttp://synonym.to/\u003e\n\nSchedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog\nChat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog\nSocial: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221015/e01898e5/attachment.html\u003e"}