rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-10-14 📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of gaslighting > happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants > wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay. The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin. Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation _is_ an attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized. ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make deals with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely harmful. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221014/7127d8c2/attachment.sig>