On mempool policy consistency

Summary:

The email thread on the bitcoin-dev mailing list discusses the issue of opt-in Replace-By-Fee (RBF) not being enough to prevent a denial-of-service attack in coinjoins, dual funding, and DLCs. The concern is that if Alice spams the network with an alternative transaction double spending her input before publishing it, it could cause problems for others who have populated their mempool with the first transaction. They might waste time trying to fee bump the transaction instead of canceling it. While some argue that opt-in RBF is enough for this scenario, no one has presented a solution to the problem raised by Antoine in the 17 months since he brought it up.Anthony Towns expresses his bias against zeroconf and states that he wouldn't trust it for his own incoming funds regardless of how safe it appears in practice. He advocates for a world where chargebacks are impossible rather than making the best of what was possible with outdated technology. He believes that people who are willing to tolerate the risks of zeroconf should be involved in the discussion.John Carvalho accuses Anthony of being biased towards protecting the plan of RBF despite his diplomatic tone. He suggests that Anthony's references remain conveniently biased and that he should stop trying to impose optional features, particularly when they affect existing use cases. John also accuses Anthony of using passive aggression, escalation, unfair advantage, oppressive dark-pattern design, strong-arming, and shoe-horning tactics.In response, Anthony defends his position and explains his interpretation of the comments made by gmaxwell on GitHub. He acknowledges that different people have different views on the matter and that finding common ground requires work. He questions John's claim that anyone who wants to use RBF can, citing Antoine's scenario as evidence to the contrary. Finally, he questions whether John's use of aggressive language is helping his cause.

Updated on: 2023-06-16T02:25:32.412805+00:00