📅 Original date posted:2017-07-02 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at ...

Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /

npub1f2n…rwet

2023-06-07 18:03:47

in reply to nevent1q…jjzt

📅 Original date posted:2017-07-02
📝 Original message: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?

Author Public Key

npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:03:47

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "179e3baaeee0cea6b03c18230c98756d2d6f4f61aabad165adeaac1d0b602fdb", "pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73", "created_at": 1686161027, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "6ae908cbd0a9f12abff6467fd3d89eab09bcc74de9ac35cd83e3048488dcab93", "", "root" ], [ "e", "ac231d72cd77303622c8eb255bfc3a3f0ab79a765098ee8f68d187251bb6cd97", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "0edd50f962d40f6d28430b426c163d97f61365f07c64af51b8de33261ddd108a" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-02\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e ==Abstract==\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP125 allows transactions to opt into replaceability with a primary use\n\u003e case\n\u003e of allowing users to increase the fees of unconfirming transactions, helping\n\u003e create\n\u003e a more efficient fee market place.\n\nI don't really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-- the\nreceiver foolishly spent it at its own peril, spending a unconfirmed\npayment from a third party is something that Core never does, it's\nreckless unless you're doing something like CPFPing it to yourself,\nwhich is harmless (either it'll work, or it'll fail and you'll be fine\nwith that).\n\nBeyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is that\nits contrary to miner income-- you're asking miners to ignore these\nspends that otherwise they could accept. This seems unstable-- some\npeople would ignore your rule even if it were otherwise widely\nadopted, leading to the network behavior having higher volatility.\n\nInstead, perhaps a BIP that very strongly advises parties to not spend\nunconfirmed outputs from third parties while making a payment to third\nparties would achieve your end?", "sig": "0603e6f2adacce2ff4a24eb651a6b25b03bb83158f8e2d3db53c1f18185d79f1aeb87ded21ec49ba92274e79bd10469a26c25cd60c212f31cbaef79233289a2e" }