Published on: 2023-08-03T12:46:40+00:00
The claim that "trxs activity" is meaningless without demonstrating reliance on unconfirmed transaction acceptance is being challenged. The commenter questions the credibility of GAP600's offering of a "real-time risk engine" and "instant deposits & payments" without testing full-replace-by-fee (full-rbf) adoption themselves. They provide examples of transactions that were part of chains of replacements and question how these transactions are getting mined. The commenter requests the names of merchants using GAP600's claimed service to verify their reliance on unconfirmed transactions. They also mention reaching out to changelly.com for confirmation of their use of GAP600 but have yet to receive a response.GAP600 responds by stating they do not conduct specific assessments or research on hashing pools and that client confidentiality prevents them from disclosing their clients' names. They suggest contacting Max from Coinpaid for confirmation of their use of GAP600. They also mention that Changelly may not have fully implemented their service across all offerings. They provide contact details for further inquiries.In response to the commenter's assessment, GAP600 defends their honesty and offers evidence of their position. They state that they have provided clear access to clients to verify their statistics and offer a solution for validating full RBF adoption. They argue that the commenter's conclusions are unfounded.The author challenges the credibility of the claim that merchants relying on unconfirmed transactions exist and asks for concrete examples to support this assertion. They have reached out to Coinspaid and Changelly for confirmation but are awaiting a reply. They also query the specific services offered by Changelly that depend on unconfirmed transactions and inquire about the risk criteria set by GAP600. They suggest conducting test transactions if provided with the necessary information but refuse to provide transaction hashes to protect account owners. They question the lack of specific examples of affected businesses and dismiss payment processors as irrelevant. They mention instances of mining pools being harassed and decline to share private contact information. They suggest that if the service in question truly offered an unconfirmed transaction guarantee, they would have ample data on pools practicing full-rbf.The author provides evidence that there are no genuine examples of actual merchants accepting unconfirmed transactions. They mention that Changelly explicitly states that they do not accept unconfirmed payments. They request an example of an actual merchant accepting unconfirmed transactions.GAP600 provides statistics and feedback from Coinspaid to support their claims. They argue that the lack of impact on double spend rates suggests that the adoption of full RBF by miners is questionable. They mention that they reimburse clients for incorrect predictions of double spends. They clarify that they are not a payment processor but provide services to payment processors, merchants, and non-custodial liquidity providers.The author discusses the implementation of full Replace-By-Fee (RBF) in Bitcoin transactions and its potential negative impact on merchants and users who accept 0-conf transactions. They mention mitigation tools like GAP600 that require replacement transactions to include the original outputs. They provide statistics on the usage of GAP600 and mention their clients. They argue that the addition of a "first seen safe" rule is crucial to avoid negative consequences.The author of the context has submitted a pull request to enable full-rbf by default in Bitcoin Core. They mention several block explorers, nodes, and wallets that have enabled full-rbf. They argue that enabling full-rbf by default will address the issue of a minority of nodes relaying full-rbf replacements. They mention opposition from Bitrefill but found no evidence that they still accept unconfirmed transactions. They propose enabling full-rbf by default in Bitcoin Core and deprecating and removing BIP125 code in future releases. The context includes references to support the points made.
Updated on: 2023-08-11T15:41:45.105161+00:00