Author: John Carvalho 2022-10-14 10:03:21
Published on: 2022-10-14T10:03:21+00:00
The writer expresses concern about the gaslighting happening with the advancement of RBF, while merchants wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better is not okay. The argument against 0conf acceptance is that miners can facilitate doublespends anyway and are incentivized to do so if the fees are higher. However, RBF proponents seem to be threatening the use case of on-chain Bitcoin being useful at the point-of-sale for merchants and consumers. This may lead to miners, merchants, and consumers creating alternative fee mechanisms and trusted/exclusive mempools where first-seen txns are respected. The writer believes that doublespending is not a certain process and 0conf payment acceptance comes with highly manageable risks. Best practices and methods can be used by merchants, and engineers with better tools and specs can have fast and valuable commercial payments with merchants meeting user expectations. A group of builders and merchants is moving forward with demonstrating, protecting, and advancing this use case, to contrast the trend of making the mempool less predictable and easier to replace. The writer argues that RBF causes more problems than it resolves, and use cases for spending Bitcoin are more important to protect than features for pretending to enforce mempool behaviors or pretending to reliably provide replacement features. In conclusion, the writer invites anyone interested in research, specs, and tools to contact him directly or join the public chat at https://t.me/bitcoinandlightningspecs.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T01:02:18.444379+00:00