On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:39:32PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tuesday 05 December 2017 7:24:04 PM Sjors Provoost wrote: > > I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default, > > which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants > > who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested > > that wallets honor a no125=1 flag. > > > > So a BIP-21 URI would look like this: > > bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.3&no125=1 > > > > When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their > > default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference. > > This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF flag. > I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly > doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of the > flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any case.
I'll second the objection to a no-RBF flag. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
