Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-10-14 📝 Original message:Also, lightning works fine ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-10-14
📝 Original message:Also, lightning works fine and is readily available in convenient mobile
apps used by millions of people, or in . So the need for a 0conf has been
mitigated by other solutions for fast payments with no need for a trust
relationship. And for people that don't like mobile risks, core lightning
and other solutions are now easily installed and configured for use in fast
payments.
some references:
https://muun.com/ (easy!)
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning (reference, works well with
core)
https://lightning.network/ (more info)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:11 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of
> gaslighting
> > happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants
> > wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.
>
> The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.
> Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation
> _is_ an
> attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few
> merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.
>
> ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make
> deals
> with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out
> double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely
> harmful.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221014/3341dfbc/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Also, lightning works fine and is readily available in convenient mobile
apps used by millions of people, or in . So the need for a 0conf has been
mitigated by other solutions for fast payments with no need for a trust
relationship. And for people that don't like mobile risks, core lightning
and other solutions are now easily installed and configured for use in fast
payments.
some references:
https://muun.com/ (easy!)
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning (reference, works well with
core)
https://lightning.network/ (more info)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:11 AM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03:21PM +0200, John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In support of Dario's concern, I feel like there is a degree of
> gaslighting
> > happening with the advancement of RBF somehow being okay, while merchants
> > wanting to manage their own 0conf risk better being not okay.
>
> The way merchants try to manage 0conf risk is quite harmful to Bitcoin.
> Connecting to large numbers of nodes to try to risk-manage propagation
> _is_ an
> attack, albeit a mild one. Everyone doing that is very harmful; only a few
> merchants being able to do it is very unfair/centralized.
>
> ...and of course, in the past this has lead to merchants trying to make
> deals
> with miners directly, even going as far as to suggest reorging out
> double-spends. I don't need to explain why that is obviously extremely
> harmful.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221014/3341dfbc/attachment-0001.html>;