Author: Anthony Towns 2022-12-13 12:55:08
Published on: 2022-12-13T12:55:08+00:00
The bitcoin-dev mailing list is discussing the concept of Full RBF and its impact on mempool policy. Those in favor of Full RBF believe that relying on predictable mempool policy is a bad idea since miners will always want to optimize fees in the short term. This could lead to a scenario where miners advertise how to connect to their nodes, and anyone who prefers the higher fee transaction will send it to them directly.However, this assumption is not an economic fact of life. Alternatively, everyone paying for goods/services online with cryptocurrency could switch to stablecoins or ETH, causing bitcoin traffic and tx fees to drop substantially as a result, and bitcoin price to drop too. The outcome of Full RBF could result in everyone using BTC for payments switching to lightning, causing on-chain traffic to drop, and fee income to drop with it.It is unclear whether mempoolfullrbf would make bitcoin more desirable, increasing demand, and hence increasing its price. The author discusses the possibility of miners continuing to support zeroconf transactions, even if they themselves do not use or care about them. Prioritizing long-term income over immediate revenue may prevent 51% attacks from becoming a dominant strategy. The author also argues that consistent and predictable relay policy across nodes remains important and possible whether or not the policy is first seen is final, highest fee rate wins, or something else. The author advocates for Full RBF nodes, seeing it as ultimately making Bitcoin stronger by eliminating a use-case that takes risk. However, the author disagrees with preventing other people from voluntarily taking on small risks that are already easily managed or avoided. Finally, the author explains that "money for enemies" does not mean treating other Bitcoiners as enemies but rather putting power in the hands of an eclectic majority rather than an elite minority.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T22:59:57.764774+00:00