Author: El_Hoy 2022-12-05 17:25:29
Published on: 2022-12-05T17:25:29+00:00
In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Greg Sanders claimed that a proposed change to the Bitcoin network would centralize it and not achieve its intended goal. When asked why this was the case, he did not provide an explanation. Rijndael responded to Sanders' claim, stating that sending transactions directly to a miner does not sound like a risk since it is difficult for different miners to have different opt-out-rbb transactions that spend the same input. Rijndael also mentioned that making a consensus rule that enforces mempool consistency could lead to unintended chainsplits.El_Hoy suggested that a solution to Peter Todd's attack on opt-in RBF and 0Conf bitcoin usage would be to work on a bitcoin core implementation that stops propagation of full-rbf replaced blocks. However, implementing this option may be politically difficult as Petter Todd already has commit access to the main repository. El_Hoy added that a sufficiently incentivized actor could work on a fork and run several nodes with such functionality.Peter Todd had previously been offering a bounty for anyone who could successfully double spend a transaction with full RBF enabled, and had raised hundreds of dollars in donations for the effort. Anthony Towns commented on the timeline of events when the bounty was last claimed, highlighting that the default mempool had filled up earlier in the day and that the block where the bounty was claimed actually included two alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org transactions. Todd responded by clarifying that he had turned down the full-RBF reward to more normal fee levels and that there was another full-RBF double-spend from the Bob calendar.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T02:49:58.286984+00:00