rich1.0npub1jdl3plz00rvxwc6g2ckemzrgg0amx5wen4kfvs3laxtssxvk9cvsf3gh0mhttps://nostr.ae/npub1jdl3plz00rvxwc6g2ckemzrgg0amx5wen4kfvs3laxtssxvk9cvsf3gh0mnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-10-17 📝 Original message:AJ, Thanks for the latest PR and discussion, even if we know we're all (very, very, very) tired of it running almost 10 years now. I think we're close to a resolution, (2), or (3) as you note. As ariard notes in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26323#issuecomment-1280071572 we seem to have sketched out the sane design space for the transition, so now it's time to choose how we want to spend our energy and time on this. I do think patch complexity is a real concern, which means fullrbf-signalling PR has a harder road to deployment and gets push back from fullrbf-default-now folks who correctly argue this. It seems useful to "prove a point" on the nature of these schemes, but not much else. Personally I have no qualms with kicking back flag-day-fullrbf another release cycle and 6 additional months to obviate the need for a 24.0 backport(however small!) and to give a bit more time to weigh choices. People can begin testing with their node software on an opt-in basis(but not the required ~10% of nodes), 25.0+ nodes will flag-day, then a year from now the community can start testing if miners have picked up said changes. Speaking to no one in particular, there's no virtue in dragging on the discussion to "prove a point" to "merchants"/"Core devs" when we could be spending our time more wisely fixing the many other issues with our mempool and wallet ecosystem. Best, Greg On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 4:09 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:35:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 04:11:05PM +0000, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > In my view, it is just what I said: a step towards getting full RBF > > > on the network, by allowing experimentation and socializing the notion > > > that developers believe it is time. > > We "believe it is time" for what exactly, though? (a) To start > > deprerecating accepting zeroconf txs on mainnet, over the next 6, 12 or > > 18 months; or (b) to start switching mainnet mining and relay nodes over > > to full RBF? > > For what it's worth, that was a serious question: I don't feel like I > know what other people's answer to it is. > > Seems to me like there's fundamentally maybe three approaches: > > 1) Continue supporting and encouraging accepting unconfirmed "on-chain" > payments indefinitely > > 2) Draw a line in the sand now, but give people who are currently > accepting unconfirmed txs time to update their software and business > model > > 3) Encourage mainnet miners and relay nodes to support unconditional > RBF immediately, no matter how much that increases the risk to > existing businesses that are still accepting unconfirmed txs > > I think Antoine gave a pretty decent rationale for why we shouldn't > indefinitely continue with conditional RBF in [0] [1] -- it makes it > easy to disrupt decentralised pooling protocols, whether that be for > establishing lightning channels or coinjoins or anything else. > > [0] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html > [1] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020557.html > > It's also an unstable equilibrium -- if everyone does first-seen-is-final > at the mempool level, everything is fine; but it only takes a few > defectors to start relaying and mining full RBF txs to spoil zeroconf > for everyone -- so even if it were desirable to maintain it forever, > it's probably not actually possible to maintain it indefinitely. > > If so, that leaves the choice between (2) and (3). You might argue > that there's a 4th option: ignore the problem and think about it later; > but to me that seems like it will just eventually result in outcome (3). > > > At least a few people are already running full RBF relay nodes [2] [3] > [4], and there's a report that non-signalling RBF txs are now getting > mined [5] when they weren't a few months ago [6]. I wasn't able to > confirm the latter to my satisfaction: looking at mempool.observer, the > non-RBF signalling conflicting txs don't seem to have been consistently > paying a higher feerate, so I couldn't rule out the possibility that > the difference might just be due to inconsistent relaying. > > [2] https://twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1552488955328831492 > [3] https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/977211607947317254 > [4] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020592.html > [5] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020592.html > [6] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020592.html > > It seems to me that the best approach for implementing (3) would be > to change the default for -mempoolfullrbf to true immediately, which > is both what Knots has been doing for years, and what #26305 proposes > [7]. So from seeing what people are actually *doing*, I could easily > be convinced that (3) is the goal people are actually working towards. > > [7] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26305 > > But if (3) *is* what we're really trying to do, I think it's a bit > disingenuous to assume that that effort will fail, and tell people that > nothing's going to change on mainnet in the near future [8] [9] [10] > [11]. If pools are starting to allow replacements of txs that didn't > signal according to BIP 125 and mine blocks including those replacements, > then it's true that zero-conf apps are in much more immediate danger > than they were a month ago, and as far as I can see, we shouldn't be > pretending otherwise. > > [8] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26287#issuecomment-1274953204 > [9] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26287#issuecomment-1276682043 > [10] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/020981.html > [11] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021006.html > > Personally, I prefer an approach like (2) -- commit to doing something > first, give people time to prepare for it, and then do it, and outside > of Knots, I don't think there's been any clear commitment to deprecating > zeroconf txs up until now. But what we're currently doing is suboptimal > for that in two ways: > > - there's no real commitment that the change will actually happen > - even if it does, there's no indication when that will be > - it's not easy to test your apps against the new world order, because > it's not well supported on either testnet or signet, being disabled > by default on both those networks > > Dario suggested an approach [12] that seems like it would resolve all > these issues: > > ] This could be one such proposal: > ] 1. We activate [..] full-RBF on testnet now. > ] 2. We commit now (in the code) to a block height in the future at > ] which [..] full-RBF will activate on mainnet. > > (I've delted the words "opt-in" and "opt-out" from the quote above, > because they didn't make sense to me) > > [12] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021007.html > > I've made up a patch along these lines [13]; it's easy to use a timestamp > rather than a block height, so I've arbitrarily picked 1st May (slightly > over 6 months away) as the changeover time. If people are willing to > give zeroconf businesses some time to adapt, including something along > those lines in 24.0 seems a better approach to me: > > * it gives a clear deadline for businesses to adapt, so that they don't > defer it and suddenly complain "oh no, we didn't think you were > serious, please give us more time" later > > * it gives plenty(?) of time to update your code and test it, as well > as teach customers and customer support about the new behaviour > > * when the deadline hits, presumably plenty of nodes and miners will > immediately start supporting the new behaviour on mainnet, so that > protocols can quickly start relying on that method of tx pinning no > longer being applicable > > * nodes on signet and testnet will quickly adopt the new behaviour, > well before it's available on mainnet, making testing easier > > [13] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26323 > > To me, this seems like a good way of achieving what I said previously: > > > If we're trying to socialise the idea that zeroconf deprecation is > > happening and that your business now has a real deadline for migrating > > away from accepting unconfirmed txs if the risk of being defrauded > > concerns you, then enabling experimentation on test nets and not touching > > mainnet until a later release seems fairly fine to me -- similar to > > activating soft forks on test nets prior to activating it on mainnet. > > Cheers, > aj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221017/b9415d4b/attachment.html>