Daniel Lipshitz [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2023-01-16 šļø Summary of this message: GAP600 ...
š
Original date posted:2023-01-16
šļø Summary of this message: GAP600 apologizes for inaccurate initial and follow-up numbers on unique trx hashes queried, but clarifies accurate USD value and unique bitcoin addresses queried. They enable 0-conf on Bitcoin for clients via API and do not require AML/KYC information. They estimate significant numbers of merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on Bitcoin outside of their platform.
š Original message:Some further clarity on our unique trx hashes queried to our platform, our
initial and followup numbers on unique trx hashes queried were not accurate
- apologies. Bitcoin addresses queried and Usd value and unique were
accurate. This is as a result of our platform viewing each queried bitcoin
address as a transaction from our point of view.
November 2022
Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.5m trxs
Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried- circa 500k
USD value - circa 220m
December 2022
Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.7m trxs
Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried - circa 500k
USD value - circa 200m
There are further merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on
Bitcoin who are not working via our platform - I do not know their numbers
but believe they are significant. 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood
risks is a significant use case.
For third party clarification please see
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
and
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021238.html
________________________________
Daniel Lipshitz
GAP600| www.gap600.com
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15 PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel at gap600.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 1:53 AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:06:15AM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
>> > GAP600 is not a trxs processor or liquidity provider we service
>> merchants,
>> > payment processors & non-custodial liquidity providers - our service is
>> > purely the 0-conf enabling our clients to accept 0-conf. Clients access
>> our
>> > service via API - sending us the Trx hash & output address. Our service
>> is
>> > not based on AML/KYC it is purely an analysis of the Bitcoin network.
>>
>> I checked and to sign up for your service, you ask for the name, phone
>> number,
>> email, and company name.
>>
>> That is an example of AML/KYC. By learning the tx hash and output
>> address, you
>> learn which addresses are associated with what real world entity is
>> paying for
>> your service. You learning that information for what you claim is ~10% of
>> all
>> transactions is a significant privacy concern. On that basiss alone, I
>> would
>> argue that full-rbf should be implemented specifically to destroy your
>> business
>> and stop the collection of that data.
>>
>> We have standard commercial information about the payment processors, non
> custodial liquidity providers and merchants which become our clients - we
> do not have any kyc/aml information or telephone number on who is sending
> our clients the bitcoin for deposit. For us these are just bitcoin Trx
> which our clients choose to benefit from 0-conf deposit recognition. Our
> service is provided via API with the only information our clients share
> with us, regarding a specific bitcoin transaction, being public bitcoin
> information like trx hash and output address.
>
> > I am not at liberty to share names of other services which have developed
>> > their own 0-conf service - they include a payment processor on a
>> gambling
>> > platform which services multiple gambling operators, a standalone gaming
>> > payment processor, and a payment processor recently I have come across.
>> We
>> > also do not have a significant presence in Asia - so I don't have
>> > visibility there.
>>
>> No, I asked you for information on what companies are actually using
>> *your*
>> service. You claim to be involved with a huge % of all transactions. If
>> that is
>> in fact true, obviously it shouldn't be hard to provide some examples of
>> merchants using GAP600 to accept unconfirmed txs.
>>
>
> As already posted here
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021240.html
> Max CEO from Coinspaid who has provided Cpoinspaid address clusters, see
> link, is available to discuss further and may choose to share further
> information on the merchants they support.
>
>>
>> > I don't see it being necessarily an either/or approach here. The risk
>> > looking to be mitigated with FullRBF seems to be able to be mitigated
>> with
>> > FullRBF but with a swop limitation of at least the Inputs of Trx1 being
>> in
>> > Trx2 - no flagging required. Added to this all these trxs always have
>> the
>> > OptinRBF so if these platforms need to be able to recreate completely
>> their
>> > trxs they have that option as well. The option to Swop out or bump up
>> trxs
>> > seems to be well covered under those two options.
>>
>> You are not correct. One of the most important use-cases for full-rbf is
>> multi-party transactions; adding that limitation to full-rbf negates that
>> usecase. See my post on why full-rbf makes DoS attacks on multiparty
>> protocols
>> significantly more expensive:
>>
>>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021322.html
>
>
> I also note that there is ongoing debate as to the need for full RBF see
> here
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021331.html
> .
>
> This seems to be an extreme edge case - with Opt-in RBF, FSS Full RBF and
> common sense - offering enough coverage to mitigate.
>
> 0-conf although may not be liked by some actors in Bitcoin, is engaged
> with free choice and understanding of the risks. 0-conf is a long standing
> and significant use case which should not be ignored. 0-conf demise should
> be viewed as being a major and unnecessary cost to FullRBF as currently
> implemented.
>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230116/f3948317/attachment.html>;
šļø Summary of this message: GAP600 apologizes for inaccurate initial and follow-up numbers on unique trx hashes queried, but clarifies accurate USD value and unique bitcoin addresses queried. They enable 0-conf on Bitcoin for clients via API and do not require AML/KYC information. They estimate significant numbers of merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on Bitcoin outside of their platform.
š Original message:Some further clarity on our unique trx hashes queried to our platform, our
initial and followup numbers on unique trx hashes queried were not accurate
- apologies. Bitcoin addresses queried and Usd value and unique were
accurate. This is as a result of our platform viewing each queried bitcoin
address as a transaction from our point of view.
November 2022
Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.5m trxs
Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried- circa 500k
USD value - circa 220m
December 2022
Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.7m trxs
Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried - circa 500k
USD value - circa 200m
There are further merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on
Bitcoin who are not working via our platform - I do not know their numbers
but believe they are significant. 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood
risks is a significant use case.
For third party clarification please see
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html
and
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021238.html
________________________________
Daniel Lipshitz
GAP600| www.gap600.com
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15 PM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel at gap600.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 1:53 AM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:06:15AM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote:
>> > GAP600 is not a trxs processor or liquidity provider we service
>> merchants,
>> > payment processors & non-custodial liquidity providers - our service is
>> > purely the 0-conf enabling our clients to accept 0-conf. Clients access
>> our
>> > service via API - sending us the Trx hash & output address. Our service
>> is
>> > not based on AML/KYC it is purely an analysis of the Bitcoin network.
>>
>> I checked and to sign up for your service, you ask for the name, phone
>> number,
>> email, and company name.
>>
>> That is an example of AML/KYC. By learning the tx hash and output
>> address, you
>> learn which addresses are associated with what real world entity is
>> paying for
>> your service. You learning that information for what you claim is ~10% of
>> all
>> transactions is a significant privacy concern. On that basiss alone, I
>> would
>> argue that full-rbf should be implemented specifically to destroy your
>> business
>> and stop the collection of that data.
>>
>> We have standard commercial information about the payment processors, non
> custodial liquidity providers and merchants which become our clients - we
> do not have any kyc/aml information or telephone number on who is sending
> our clients the bitcoin for deposit. For us these are just bitcoin Trx
> which our clients choose to benefit from 0-conf deposit recognition. Our
> service is provided via API with the only information our clients share
> with us, regarding a specific bitcoin transaction, being public bitcoin
> information like trx hash and output address.
>
> > I am not at liberty to share names of other services which have developed
>> > their own 0-conf service - they include a payment processor on a
>> gambling
>> > platform which services multiple gambling operators, a standalone gaming
>> > payment processor, and a payment processor recently I have come across.
>> We
>> > also do not have a significant presence in Asia - so I don't have
>> > visibility there.
>>
>> No, I asked you for information on what companies are actually using
>> *your*
>> service. You claim to be involved with a huge % of all transactions. If
>> that is
>> in fact true, obviously it shouldn't be hard to provide some examples of
>> merchants using GAP600 to accept unconfirmed txs.
>>
>
> As already posted here
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021240.html
> Max CEO from Coinspaid who has provided Cpoinspaid address clusters, see
> link, is available to discuss further and may choose to share further
> information on the merchants they support.
>
>>
>> > I don't see it being necessarily an either/or approach here. The risk
>> > looking to be mitigated with FullRBF seems to be able to be mitigated
>> with
>> > FullRBF but with a swop limitation of at least the Inputs of Trx1 being
>> in
>> > Trx2 - no flagging required. Added to this all these trxs always have
>> the
>> > OptinRBF so if these platforms need to be able to recreate completely
>> their
>> > trxs they have that option as well. The option to Swop out or bump up
>> trxs
>> > seems to be well covered under those two options.
>>
>> You are not correct. One of the most important use-cases for full-rbf is
>> multi-party transactions; adding that limitation to full-rbf negates that
>> usecase. See my post on why full-rbf makes DoS attacks on multiparty
>> protocols
>> significantly more expensive:
>>
>>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021322.html
>
>
> I also note that there is ongoing debate as to the need for full RBF see
> here
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021331.html
> .
>
> This seems to be an extreme edge case - with Opt-in RBF, FSS Full RBF and
> common sense - offering enough coverage to mitigate.
>
> 0-conf although may not be liked by some actors in Bitcoin, is engaged
> with free choice and understanding of the risks. 0-conf is a long standing
> and significant use case which should not be ignored. 0-conf demise should
> be viewed as being a major and unnecessary cost to FullRBF as currently
> implemented.
>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230116/f3948317/attachment.html>;