Rhavar [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-07-02 📝 Original message:> I don"t really see how ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-07-02
📝 Original message:> I don"t really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-
That's not really realistic. In practice some receivers do big sweeps and include unconfirmed inputs. Replacing the transaction means you need to pay the cost of the sweep, which you probably don't want to do (can be in the order of $100s of dollars).
> Beyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is thatits contrary to miner income
This applies to pretty much all non-standard transactions.
-Ryan
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions
> Local Time: July 2, 2017 3:56 PM
> UTC Time: July 2, 2017 8:56 PM
> From: greg at xiph.org
> To: Rhavar <rhavar at protonmail.com>
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> ==Abstract==
>>
>> BIP125 allows transactions to opt into replaceability with a primary use
>> case
>> of allowing users to increase the fees of unconfirming transactions, helping
>> create
>> a more efficient fee market place.
> I don"t really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-- the
> receiver foolishly spent it at its own peril, spending a unconfirmed
> payment from a third party is something that Core never does, it"s
> reckless unless you"re doing something like CPFPing it to yourself,
> which is harmless (either it"ll work, or it"ll fail and you"ll be fine
> with that).
> Beyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is that
> its contrary to miner income-- you"re asking miners to ignore these
> spends that otherwise they could accept. This seems unstable-- some
> people would ignore your rule even if it were otherwise widely
> adopted, leading to the network behavior having higher volatility.
> Instead, perhaps a BIP that very strongly advises parties to not spend
> unconfirmed outputs from third parties while making a payment to third
> parties would achieve your end?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170702/5b724d82/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:> I don"t really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-
That's not really realistic. In practice some receivers do big sweeps and include unconfirmed inputs. Replacing the transaction means you need to pay the cost of the sweep, which you probably don't want to do (can be in the order of $100s of dollars).
> Beyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is thatits contrary to miner income
This applies to pretty much all non-standard transactions.
-Ryan
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions
> Local Time: July 2, 2017 3:56 PM
> UTC Time: July 2, 2017 8:56 PM
> From: greg at xiph.org
> To: Rhavar <rhavar at protonmail.com>
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> ==Abstract==
>>
>> BIP125 allows transactions to opt into replaceability with a primary use
>> case
>> of allowing users to increase the fees of unconfirming transactions, helping
>> create
>> a more efficient fee market place.
> I don"t really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-- the
> receiver foolishly spent it at its own peril, spending a unconfirmed
> payment from a third party is something that Core never does, it"s
> reckless unless you"re doing something like CPFPing it to yourself,
> which is harmless (either it"ll work, or it"ll fail and you"ll be fine
> with that).
> Beyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is that
> its contrary to miner income-- you"re asking miners to ignore these
> spends that otherwise they could accept. This seems unstable-- some
> people would ignore your rule even if it were otherwise widely
> adopted, leading to the network behavior having higher volatility.
> Instead, perhaps a BIP that very strongly advises parties to not spend
> unconfirmed outputs from third parties while making a payment to third
> parties would achieve your end?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170702/5b724d82/attachment.html>;