Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-12-11 📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2017-12-11
📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:39:32PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2017 7:24:04 PM Sjors Provoost wrote:
> > I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,
> > which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants
> > who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> > that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.
> >
> > So a BIP-21 URI would look like this:
> > bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.3&no125=1
> >
> > When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> > default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
>
> This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF flag.
> I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly
> doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of the
> flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any case.

I'll second the objection to a no-RBF flag.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171211/160e761a/attachment.sig>;