Author: Murch 2022-10-18 13:40:00
Published on: 2022-10-18T13:40:00+00:00
In a recent email, John Carvalho expressed his concerns about replace-by-fee (RBF) and its potentially negative impact on Bitcoin. Despite the fact that only a small percentage of transactions use RBF, it is still an incalculable risk. This is because transactions can be replaced without warning, making it difficult for merchants to monitor and enforce 0conf acceptance. In fact, 29% of all transactions now explicitly signal replaceability, with the trend rising. Carvalho argues that responsible 0conf acceptance is both rational and trusting, with exposure to double-spends being mitigated and limited in size per block. He suggests that it is less expensive to be double-spent occasionally than to have a delayed checkout experience. If ignoring risk is an acceptable approach now, why would it no longer work when the remaining 71% of transactions also become subject to replaceability? The fact of the matter is that one cannot rely on having seen all transactions that miners are considering for their block templates, nor that a replacement will be received by the miners before the original is picked into a block. First-seen is an unstable gentlemen's agreement, inevitable to fail eventually once a few defect. Meanwhile, propping up the illusion of "reliable payment promises" is hampering price discovery of blockspace and complicating protocol development. By converging on the inevitable outcome and facilitating replaceability for all transactions, we can rip off the band-aid rather than suffer uncertainty indefinitely—even if it requires some to honestly reassess their business approach in light of the natural modus operandi of Bitcoin's gossip system.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T21:45:41.536221+00:00