rich1.0npub1w30zwgl8947760cd62fawy9hqmxnq24cga5c8s5j6j7m07w96dnqzjzhn2https://nostr.ae/npub1w30zwgl8947760cd62fawy9hqmxnq24cga5c8s5j6j7m07w96dnqzjzhn2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-10-13 📝 Original message:Hi cndm1, > Bitrefill already supports lightning, so for them it would be easy to > solve by displaying the lightning transfer by default and only show > the on-chain payment as a fallback. Currently the on-chain payment at > Bitrefill and other similar providers is really a drop-down where you > select your wallet and then they display a tutorial to you on how to > create the on-chain transaction (fee rate, RBF flag, etc). I don't > have insights into Bitrefill, but one might suspect that encouraging a > lightning payment might be a win-win situation for them and their > users. Lightning is only used for 4% payments compared to 32% on-chain payments according to a [tweet][1] from Jan 2022 by Sergej Kotliar and stats are similar based on the slides shared in a [presentation][2] in Pizza Day Prague 2022. By EUR: onchain - 30% lightning - 5% By unique users: onchain - 40% lightning - 9% > Relay of fullrbf transactions works reasonable well > already, unless you get unlucky with your selected peers. The only > missing piece is a few percent of hashrate that will accept fullrbf > replacement transactions. I don't believe relay of fullrbf transactions works well right now. The missing piece you mentioned is important and a real need for all full node users to try fullrbf. > While this will certainly happen if a > Bitcoin Core release ships with the flag on by default, it still may > happen at any time even if Bitcoin Core doesn't ship with the flag at > all. Changing default at this moment does not make sense as v24.0 could give some insights about usage of fullrbf and we could wait for a few months before changing default for users that run latest version of bitcoin core. I will quote Antoine Riard's comment from PR [#25353][3]: "_I know I've advocated in the past to turn RBF support by default in the past. Though after gathering a lot of feedbacks, this approach of offering the policy flexiblity to the interested users only and favoring a full-rbf gradual deployment sounds better to me. As a follow-up, if we add p2p logic to connect to few "full-rbf" service-bit signaling peers and recommend to the ~17000 LN nodes operators, likely (hopefully!) running bitcoind as a backend, that should be okay to guarantee a good propagation to miners (and yes reaching out to few mining pools ops to explain the income increase brought by full-rbf). Unless we observe a significant impact on compact blocks reconstruction, personally I'm really fine waiting another multi-years development cycle before to propose a default change, or even let opt-in forever the default as it is._" "_Once again, the proposed change is only targeting educated users aiming to deploy full RBF for their application specific needs. If the majority of Bitcoin users is not interested, that's okay. It's a policy rule, not a consensus one._" Although Antoine has opened another [pull request][4] to make fullrbf default a few hours ago, so I am not sure what is the new motivation or discussion that I am missing. [1]: https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1481307334068641795 [2]: https://youtu.be/bkjEcSmZKfc?t=463 [3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353 [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26305 /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, October 13th, 2022 at 9:37 PM, linuxfoundation.cndm1--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > - Bitrefill's on-chain payments for gift cards and phone top-ups > > > Bitrefill already supports lightning, so for them it would be easy to > solve by displaying the lightning transfer by default and only show > the on-chain payment as a fallback. Currently the on-chain payment at > Bitrefill and other similar providers is really a drop-down where you > select your wallet and then they display a tutorial to you on how to > create the on-chain transaction (fee rate, RBF flag, etc). I don't > have insights into Bitrefill, but one might suspect that encouraging a > lightning payment might be a win-win situation for them and their > users. > > It would be interesting to know if there are any obstacles that > Bitrefill and other services face, or if they don't agree that > lightning is an improvement over accepting unconfirmed on-chain > transactions from untrusted parties. > > > - Many bitcoin ATMs' on-chain deposits for selling bitcoin for cash (at least > > > I haven't tried them yet, but I suspect they could benefit in a > similar by showing lightning transfers more prominently. Moreover, any > UX improvement they can offer to users that intentionally or > accidentally selected RBF opt-in, will also benefit users once fullrbf > is widespread. To give an example, ATMs could immediately give out a > voucher for the cash amount that can be redeemed as soon as the > transaction is confirmed on-chain, to allow (untrusted) users to leave > the ATM and go for a walk in the meantime. > > > With full-RBF, wallets should make it extremely clear to users that unconfirmed > > funds are not theirs (yet). Otherwise, protocol-unaware users that are > > transacting on-chain with untrusted parties can be easily scammed if they don't > > know they have to wait for a confirmation. Eg. in Argentina, it's pretty common > > to meet someone in person to buy bitcoin P2P for cash, even for newcomers. > > > This is easy to solve, because a wallet can simply display all > unconfirmed transactions as if they signalled for RBF. Your suggested > solution to "activate" fullrbf at a specific block height might be > counter productive, because educating users that unconfirmed > transactions are unsafe takes longer than a single block. So the > earlier users are educated that unconfirmed transactions from > untrusted parties are unsafe, the better. > > > # Impact at Muun > > > > Work to transition Muun from using zero-conf submarine swaps to using payment > > channels is ongoing, but we are still several months away from being production > > ready. This means we would have to turn off outgoing lightning payments for > > +100k monthly active users, which is a good chunk of all users making > > non-custodial lightning payments today. > > > It would be unfortunate for those users, but I think that the risk > exists today. Relay of fullrbf transactions works reasonable well > already, unless you get unlucky with your selected peers. The only > missing piece is a few percent of hashrate that will accept fullrbf > replacement transactions. While this will certainly happen if a > Bitcoin Core release ships with the flag on by default, it still may > happen at any time even if Bitcoin Core doesn't ship with the flag at > all. > > Best, > cndm1 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev