<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2022-10-15&#xA;📝 Original message:Peter,&#xA;&#xA;Your argument is totally hypocritical and loses when comparing quantities.&#xA;&#xA;Enforcing RBF is observably more &#34;harmful to Bitcoin&#34; (whatever that&#xA;means...) when it tries to &#34;risk-manage propagation&#34; of replacements, as&#xA;there more Bitcoiners that want to mutually utilize 0conf than users that&#xA;want to replace transactions.&#xA;&#xA;Spending bitcoin is a use case, so replacing txns reduces utility and makes&#xA;commitments less certain.&#xA;&#xA;No one here arguing for 0conf is suggesting reorgs, so please do not&#xA;sensationalize with claims of reorgs or &#34;harm.&#34;&#xA;&#xA;Take note that it is RBF proponents that have changed Bitcoin code and seek&#xA;to continue to change Bitcoin, RBF that seeks to reduce commercial utility&#xA;-- but 0conf proponents are not asking for changes to Bitcoin, not&#xA;suggesting soft or hard forks, etc. We are asking you to stop breaking&#xA;things by adding features for minority speculative interests.&#xA;&#xA;-John&#xA;&#xA;On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 5:04 PM Peter Todd &lt;pete at petertodd.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev&#xA;&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt; In support of Dario&#39;s concern, I feel like there is a degree of&#xA;&gt; gaslighting&#xA;&gt; &gt; happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants&#xA;&gt; &gt; wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.&#xA;&gt; Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation&#xA;&gt; _is_ an&#xA;&gt; attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few&#xA;&gt; merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make&#xA;&gt; deals&#xA;&gt; with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out&#xA;&gt; double-spends. I don&#39;t need to explain why that is obviously extremely&#xA;&gt; harmful.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;&gt; https://petertodd.org &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@petertodd.org&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-- &#xA;--&#xA;John Carvalho&#xA;CEO, Synonym.to &lt;http://synonym.to/&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Schedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog&#xA;Chat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog&#xA;Social: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221015/e01898e5/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>