This is factually incorrect and not required for us to do what we do. On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:58:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this > > > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good > > > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not > something > > > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all? > > > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will > have to > > > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC > to a > > > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal > payment > > > processor type business. > > > > So, what I'm hearing is: > > > > * lightning works great, but is still pretty small > > * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF > > It's important to note that the businesses that say "zeroconf works great" > for > them, appear to be achieving that by sybil attacking the network to measure > propagation. That's not sustainable nor decentralized, as only a small > number > of companies can do that without causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin by using > up > inbound slots. We've gone through this before with "zeroconf guarantee" > services, and the end result is not good. > > It's in our interests to make sure those companies stop doing that, and no > new > companies start. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > -- Sergej Kotliar CEO Twitter: @ziggamon <https://twitter.com/ziggamon> www.bitrefill.com Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill> | Blog <https://www.bitrefill.com/blog/> | Angellist <https://angel.co/bitrefill>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
