Author: Antoine Riard 2022-12-02 22:35:39
Published on: 2022-12-02T22:35:39+00:00
The message from Antoine addresses Daniel, who operates a zero-conf risk analysis business that is leveraged by payment processors/liquidity providers and merchants. Antoine raises concerns about fullrbf deployment, which would lower the cost of double-spend attacks and increase risk exposure for users. He questions the statistics on the 1.5M transactions per month received by Daniel's business, asking how many are Bitcoin-only, excluded from zeroconf due to factors like RBF, long-chain of unconfirmed ancestors or too high-value, and what has been the average feerate. He states his personal position on fullrbf deployment as expressed in #26525, stating that there is still no conceptual consensus on deploying full-rbf or removing it. Antoine believes that the community needs to address the qualification of enough economic flows at risk and the presence of a sizable loss in miners income before considering removing the current option from Bitcoin Core. He also raises the question if the Bitcoin protocol development community should restrain user choice in policy settings in the name of preserving mining income and established use-case stability. The original technical motivation of the fullrbf option was to address a DoS vector affecting multi-party transactions like coinjoin and contracting protocols like Lightning. However, alternative paths to solve this DoS vector have been devised since then, all with their own trade-offs and conceptual issues. Antoine provides links to various sources where he has previously discussed these issues. Overall, his message highlights the potential risks associated with fullrbf deployment and raises questions about the need to balance user choice with preserving mining income and established use-case stability.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T22:58:10.363578+00:00