📅 Original date posted:2022-10-21 📝 Original message:This is factually ...

Sergej Kotliar [ARCHIVE] /

npub1d3y…v3vk

2023-06-07 23:14:59

in reply to nevent1q…4xe4

📅 Original date posted:2022-10-21
📝 Original message:This is factually incorrect and not required for us to do what we do.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:58:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this
> > > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good
> > > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not
> something
> > > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all?
> > > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will
> have to
> > > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC
> to a
> > > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal
> payment
> > > processor type business.
> >
> > So, what I'm hearing is:
> >
> > * lightning works great, but is still pretty small
> > * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF
>
> It's important to note that the businesses that say "zeroconf works great"
> for
> them, appear to be achieving that by sybil attacking the network to measure
> propagation. That's not sustainable nor decentralized, as only a small
> number
> of companies can do that without causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin by using
> up
> inbound slots. We've gone through this before with "zeroconf guarantee"
> services, and the end result is not good.
>
> It's in our interests to make sure those companies stop doing that, and no
> new
> companies start.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>

--

Sergej Kotliar

CEO

Twitter: @ziggamon <https://twitter.com/ziggamon>;

www.bitrefill.com

Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/bitrefill>; | Blog
<https://www.bitrefill.com/blog/>; | Angellist <https://angel.co/bitrefill>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221021/8043e767/attachment-0001.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1d3yzrjfu44rf7wehmqcyantnssqc54hknanqh3df9yfj3qycvg7q9wv3vk

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 23:14:59

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "7a1c1b57788468c979195396f5773e5186ef3af9f97e21d6344e6598f301e7f7", "pubkey": "6c4821c93cad469f3b37d8304ecd7384018a56f69f660bc5a92913288098623c", "created_at": 1686179699, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "946b9a8231803f73c278c08ca74b58bc34d6ba681eae8ff2a82e75b78f2e09ab", "", "root" ], [ "e", "fc2e1793dc039a4a7d407c36d55fa46b343e330106cd20f7cb8e3f2855a66e88", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-10-21\n📝 Original message:This is factually incorrect and not required for us to do what we do.\n\nOn Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:58:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not\n\u003e something\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all?\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will\n\u003e have to\n\u003e \u003e \u003e do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC\n\u003e to a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal\n\u003e payment\n\u003e \u003e \u003e processor type business.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e So, what I'm hearing is:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e * lightning works great, but is still pretty small\n\u003e \u003e * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF\n\u003e\n\u003e It's important to note that the businesses that say \"zeroconf works great\"\n\u003e for\n\u003e them, appear to be achieving that by sybil attacking the network to measure\n\u003e propagation. That's not sustainable nor decentralized, as only a small\n\u003e number\n\u003e of companies can do that without causing a lot of harm to Bitcoin by using\n\u003e up\n\u003e inbound slots. We've gone through this before with \"zeroconf guarantee\"\n\u003e services, and the end result is not good.\n\u003e\n\u003e It's in our interests to make sure those companies stop doing that, and no\n\u003e new\n\u003e companies start.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \n\nSergej Kotliar\n\nCEO\n\n\nTwitter: @ziggamon \u003chttps://twitter.com/ziggamon\u003e\n\n\nwww.bitrefill.com\n\nTwitter \u003chttps://www.twitter.com/bitrefill\u003e | Blog\n\u003chttps://www.bitrefill.com/blog/\u003e | Angellist \u003chttps://angel.co/bitrefill\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221021/8043e767/attachment-0001.html\u003e", "sig": "f6b810fdb9c473edcf95409635687571c066d4553ab5a5809998a6d3d7c027d7d0f0cc4a225ac019cd56f1642bb4930ffcd56e4862d389dc90db427d2983be48" }