91
92

Peter Todd: F2Pool enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me. (mail-archive.com)

Kupsi が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 305
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Yoghurt114 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a business. What does this mean for me?

If you use your own node to verify transactions, you probably are in a similar situation as average users, so again, this means very little to you.

Many (most) businesses currently depend on first-seen policy. They don't expect transactions to be double-spent and actually be included in a block. In a way, they trust the network to enforce this policy, and they account for the 'stray' double-spends that wiggle through the seams in their margins. That's not ideal, but that's how it is now.

While business probably need to move away from depending on the network to enforce this policy anyway, that's not what it looks like today.

This patch allows all double-spends for unconfirmed transactions with higher fees to be included in the next block, rather than the first-seen transaction. Effectively, this allows everyone to steal from anyone that depends on first-seen policies at hugely appreciated odds.

So how, I wonder, does this mean "very little" to businesses?

[–]ganesha1024 32ポイント33ポイント  (35子コメント)

I know Mike has gotten a lot of flak lately, but this deserves reading, and a rebuttal from Peter if he hasn't already.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d

TL;DR; Mike Hearn argues RBF makes double spending easier, because it causes miners to prefer higher fee transactions, instead of the first transaction they hear about.

[–]PotatoBadger 8ポイント9ポイント  (15子コメント)

TL;DR; Mike Hearn argues RBF makes double spending easier

No shit it makes double spending easier. That is, double spending against people who apparently blacked out on the whole idea of waiting for X confirmations before assuming a transaction can't be reversed.

[–]SatoshisGhost 10ポイント11ポイント  (14子コメント)

well, if you want to buy your morning latte with bitcoin and the cafe is going to make you wait ~10-20 mins for the first confirmation, the line is going to be really, really long.

[–]PotatoBadger -3ポイント-2ポイント  (12子コメント)

False dichotomy. There are reliable solutions for instant confirmation which don't rely on every single miner being selflessly benevolent.

[–][削除されました]  (10子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]PotatoBadger -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

    You mean like GreenAddress?

    Sure

    Which Peter Todd receives money from?

    Relevance?

    [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]cpgilliard78 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      No, he doesn't receive money from GreenAddress:

      http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aey15/psa_peter_todd_received_money_from_both_viacoin/csc0o0s

      [–]marcoski711 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Of course it's relevant! Jeez, whole arguments on RBF are about game theory and 'rational' actors and, guess what? Incentives.

      I love GreenAddress but actively try and avoid confirmation biases when evaluating these sort of debates. /u/0xd34dc0ff33 do you have link or external confirmation of this?

      [–]Geoff5151 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      todd has said he has not received money from them. OP retracted their statement but it was deleted.

      [–]nanoakron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Care to name any that are as cheap and ubiquitous as just running a Bitcoin wallet on a phone?

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]PotatoBadger -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          confirmed transactions versus zero-conf transactions

          False dichotomy. Other solutions for instant confirmation exist.

          コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

            [–]GibbsSamplePlatter 31ポイント32ポイント  (15子コメント)

            update:

            F2Pool is switching to First-seen-safe version instead.

            Still better than status quo. Good. Let's get a fee market going please.

            [–]Yoghurt114 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

            F2Pool is switching to First-seen-safe version instead.

            Thank the great ooze-lords for that.

            Businesses are by no means ready for full RBF, and if they aren't, you can be sure as shit attackers will be.

            [–]GibbsSamplePlatter 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

            it's a win-win for all sides. Wallets will start handling bumps, a fee market will begin to start forming, and fewer bitcoin will get "stuck".

            [–]Yoghurt114 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

            a fee market will begin to start forming

            I'd be interested to see it form, how it'd play out, what it'd do to user adoption, perception, maturity, the UX in wallets, how it would drive off-chain innovation, lightning, etc. But that's just interest.

            Do I think we need a fee market, now, at these throughput speeds and current levels of adoption? No, definitely not. Block rewards alone (and the aggregate anti-spam fee) incentivizes miners plenty for at least the foreseeable future, and I see no reason to potentially drive adoption down at this time.

            [–]GibbsSamplePlatter 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Well people right now are overpaying madly with their fees to avoid getting "stuck". Hopefully that can get a little better now that we have pretty good fee estimates and a method of bumping coming up.

            コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

              [–]bdangh 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Source?

              [–]BTCisGod 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

              This mantra of a fee-market... Why? So as to pay for security of the blockchain? Because 1.3 million bitcoins created out of thin air and handed to the miners are not enough to secure the blockchain in 2015? Even in 2016 close to 1 million bitcoins will be inflated into existence.

              In the long run, yes, we will need higher fees AND/OR more transactions paying modest fees. And it will be interesting transitioning to that environment. But for the next few years, at least, it is putting cart before the horse.

              [–]aminok 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              A fee market helps reduce bloat, which increases the efficiency of the Bitcoin network. I don't think a static hard limit should be used to create such a a fee market, but I do think some other mechanism that is able to create a slight amount of block space scarcity, to create a fee market where txs are paying at least $0.02-0.05 USD worth of BTC in fees, would be good.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]saintoshi 45ポイント46ポイント  (45子コメント)

                Very questionable decision.

                [–]caveden 24ポイント25ポイント  (7子コメント)

                Questionable is an understatement. Peter Todd seems to be actively working to break Bitcoin.

                [–]justusranvier 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Peter Todd seems to be actively working to break Bitcoin.

                ...in order to promote Proofchains.

                [–]Introshine 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                This. 100x this. He's trying to kill it imho. I consider him rogue.

                [–]PotatoBadger 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

                TIL we're supposed to stick our head in the sand and treat 0 confirmations as irreversible because miners should be benevolent.

                [–]caveden 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Would you put a fancy security system around your house if there were no cases of burglary/robbery in your neighborhood since years?

                Everybody knows the vulnerability exists. A complicated system to warn nodes about double spend attempts could be created, that would inevitably have to come with more security like KYC, cameras for physical transaction so you can identify thieves etc. Yes, all that could exist to try to catch eventual double spenders.

                But, insofar, such kind of theft (double-spending 0-confs) is practically not happening. Retailers can safely accept 0-conf. And that's in great part because miners, who have an interest in Bitcoin's success, do not implement RBF.

                What Peter Todd is doing is equivalent to going around town yelling that his neighbor has gone in vacation and left his house open, while at the same time even providing appropriate tools for wannabe burglars. This is just wrong.

                [–]testing1567 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                No, it's not like that at all. Currently there is a legitimate risk assessment to accepting 0 conf transactions. You can calculate the risk by watching the transaction relay through the network since miners always prefer the one that arrives first. This patch kills the ability to use that type of risk assessment. It's not perfect and I believe that the true power of off chain transactions will be instant transfers, but currently those options don't exist.

                [–]PotatoBadger -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

                miners always prefer the one that arrives first

                According to who? They're allowed to prefer whatever they want. Believing otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

                [–]testing1567 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                It's not altruism. It's a belief that an entity that is heavy invested in the bitcoin ecosystem will not want to tank the economy by destroying the currently existing business models for an extra couple of cents per block. Also, that will trickle down to the miners who are pointing their power to the pools. No one in the bitcoin ecosystem wants to see businesses stop accepting bitcoin. That is not altruism, its good business sense. My point has already been proven by f2pool already changing their mind to the version that will only accept transactions with the same outputs. The system works. All parties involved will look out for their best interests. That's where my faith lies.

                [–]BitFast -5ポイント-4ポイント  (36子コメント)

                It makes it easy to resend a transaction when it gets stuck for too low fee, which will be increasingly possible as the block gets fuller

                [–]saintoshi 35ポイント36ポイント  (32子コメント)

                The wrong solution for the wrong problem.

                [–]BitFast 3ポイント4ポイント  (30子コメント)

                what is the right solution to the right problem?

                [–]CoinbaseAdrian 29ポイント30ポイント  (4子コメント)

                The right solution to this problem is allowing RBF only if the new transaction still spends to the same outputs. This is known as "honest" or "first seen safe" replace by fee.

                https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6176

                [–]tsontar 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                You said something really important right there.

                Mind saying it again into this megaphone so everyone can hear you?

                The right solution to this problem is allowing RBF only if the new transaction still spends to the same outputs.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  [–]saintoshi 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

                  I don't know. But at least you're asking the right questions now.

                  [–]samurai321 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

                  there are many! you just need more engineering.

                  before it was only economical to do a double spend if there are big amounts, now it's trivial. People were not accepting 0 conf for >1btc payments. Are you blind. ?

                  [–]Cocosoft 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Child pays for parent.

                  [–]aminok 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Partial RBF.

                  [–]samurai321 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  upvoted

                  [–]samurai321 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  for that just add the option to increase the fee to the payment. Don't make easyier to double-spend. if it allows you to just add more fees it's not a double spend.

                  [–]drwasho 55ポイント56ポイント  (37子コメント)

                  This is Peter's way of pushing his position on the block size debate.

                  A fee market cannot be supported without RBF... but he took it a step further and made it relatively trivial for you to submit a zeroconf transaction with a higher fee and different outputs.

                  What this really means for you is: if you're selling coffee at your cafe, and someone pays with bitcoin, he can double-spend that transaction as soon as he's out door.

                  Do you want to use Bitcoin as a transactional currency? Too bad, Peter Todd thinks his vision of Bitcoin is superior to Satoshi's.

                  Bottom-line: if you're a miner, boycott F2Pool. If you think you should be able to sell goods and services without the fear of double-spend attacks, put pressure on F2Pool and any other miner to drop RBF.

                  [–]110101002 21ポイント22ポイント  (12子コメント)

                  This is Peter's way of pushing his position on the block size debate.

                  He's actually been pushing this for quite a while now, long before the blocksize cap was a big concern on Reddit.

                  [–]drwasho 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

                  Peter is a smart guy, he's thought about this well in advance.

                  No one doubts his cleverness, it's his judgement and wisdom around the debate, and this action specifically, that I find most disturbing.

                  [–]110101002 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  Or maybe you're just not realizing that RBF is useful and the only "security" it gets rid of is security through obscurity.

                  [–]cflag 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  security through obscurity

                  We rely on it more than you think.

                  I think this whole debate boils down to the line between these principles and the real world.

                  [–]110101002 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Anyone relying on security through obscurity is creating a large risk for themselves. IMO we shouldn't stop progress because some people depend on bad practices. They should be informed of their bad practices, then we should move on, with or without them. After all, they are only secured by the fact that people aren't actively attacking, not by some fundamental incredible cost in attacking as is with the case of attacking Bitcoin mining, cracking ECDSA, etc.

                  [–]cflag 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  I agree with that perspective in general, but don't understand how promoting RBF can be called "moving on". It looks more like "pushing for".

                  Also, I don't think we have good enough analysis about the nature and extent of risk. It would more likely reveal itself as a gradual increase in fraud rather than a massive network wide attack, leaving ample time for the market to switch to existing alternatives.

                  [–]110101002 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  but don't understand how promoting RBF can be called "moving on".

                  It's an improvement that allows lower fees and special contracts to happen.

                  It would more likely reveal itself as a gradual increase in fraud rather than a massive network wide attack,

                  It has to happen eventually, why not, over two years after the idea has been in development and discussed thoroughly.

                  [–]cflag 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I don't think there is enough evidence to say that it has to happen eventually.

                  You are right about the fee regime though, it does justify the push itself. Thanks.

                  [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  for quite a while now, long before the blocksize cap was

                  Peter's been arguing against increasing the cap for far longer than the debate has existed.

                  [–]i_wolf 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  A fee market cannot be supported without RBF.

                  Of course it can, fee market already exists, we pay higher fees for faster confirmation. Miners will set higher fees when block reward won't be sufficient anymore.

                  [–]justusranvier 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  In the context of a purchase, or a business deal, signing a Bitcoin transactions is part of an enforcible, legal contract.

                  Creating a double spend is a form of payment fraud, exactly like check kiting.

                  I hope Peter Todd makes sure to warn users of this particular feature that, depending on their country of residence, they may be committing a felony by using it.

                  [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Do you really think that users are so stupid to think that walking away with merchandise that is not paid for would not be a crime?

                  [–]justusranvier 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Not all crimes are of equal severity.

                  I'm certainly not going to say that software users should always obey every law, but the polite thing for software developers to do for their users is make sure they are fully informed with regards to the risks they take.

                  [–]GibbsSamplePlatter 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  It's almost as though Bitcoin(layer 1) doesn't solve 0-conf trustlessly.

                  Seriously though, it makes fee-bumping significantly cheaper.

                  [–]pinhead26 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  this! 0-conf has never been safe, the protocol does not protect against it. Satoshi's white paper recommends 6 confirmations for a reason! Peter is important because he bangs on Bitcoin pretty hard, and at least he's "on our side."

                  [–]smartfbrankings 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  BUT I WANT ZERO CONF TO WORK!! MAYBE IF WE IGNORE THE PROBLEM IT WON'T BE ONE!!!!!!!

                  [–]Vibr8gKiwi 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  This shit has got to end. There are devs who want bitcoin to not be bitcoin anymore and they are fucking with things and trying to control the block size debate. They should not be devs if they are not interested in bitcoin anymore and would rather turn it into something else.

                  [–]tropser 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  This is horrible. Bitcoin is starting to become toxic environment if shit like this continues to happen. Devs must start to act responsibly for bitcoin end users.

                  This is not sandbox for immature devs. This is 3.5 billion business. We should not tolerate toxic devs.

                  [–]rain-is-wet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  LOL. A 3.5 billion business on BETA software. The only reason it's that high is tonnes of speculation. Get real, Bitcoin is not perfect, it's being developed. Take a break, come back in 5 years...

                  [–]samurai321 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Good news:

                  FSS RBF, First seen safe Replace by fee is winning now.

                  [–]nanoakron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Peter's always been against zeroconf.

                  I think he sees it as an ideological goal to 'prove' to the rest of us that zeroconf can never work, without considering the grander implications of what that would actually mean.

                  [–]rain-is-wet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  This is BETA software. That means we should all be trying our hardest to break it. If that upsets anyone then they have likely over invested. Asking anyone to boycott anything out of some altruistic motivation is ridiculous. If Bitcoin has a flaw and Peter is highlighting it then this is great white hat work. People seem to think Bitcoin will succeed on a prayer but if it's not built like a diamond then it will crumble sooner or later.

                  [–]smartfbrankings -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  Someone paying by a check today can do the same thing. Strangely, we don't have an epidemic of double-spend-by-check attacks.

                  [–]Darft 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Uhmm yes we do. And the only reason it isnt bigger is because banks are using systems to notice the issuing bank (Issuer of the check) that they have received a check and intent to cash it soon, that way much of the fraud is stopped, but it is far from over.

                  [–]smartfbrankings -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  How does this involve retail transactions involving checks? There are systems in place to stop it, namely getting ID of someone involved, and having the ability to prosecute offenders.

                  [–]Darft 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  I know in my country (wealthy EU), no store accepts checks. Banks only cash them for a 10% premium, because even with all these security measures they still lose a lot each year.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]Cocosoft 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    Scary development.

                    [–]tsontar 20ポイント21ポイント  (16子コメント)

                    This is a very dangerous decision.

                    The price of Bitcoin is supported by a handful of critical factors, key among them:

                    1. Controlled supply

                    2. Irreversible transactions

                    These are aspects of the design explicitly detailed in the white paper as being critical for the economic success of the coin.

                    From the link:

                    A better functioning fee market will help reduce pressure to increase the blocksize, particularly from the users creating the most valuable transactions.

                    Translations:

                    "better functioning fee market" = "higher fees"

                    "pressure to increase the blocksize" = "user demand"

                    "users creating the most valuable transactions" = "financial middlemen"

                    This sentence is a dead give-away what the true intentions are: to limit the transactional capacity of the network, creating artificial scarcity for transactions that drives up fees and crowds ordinary "P2P" users out of the system.

                    Here's my rewrite of the above sentence:

                    "Higher fees will help drive individual users off the blockchain, forcing them to use financial middlemen in order to actually interact with it."

                    [–]bitskeptic 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    I do agree that there is going to be fallout from this change (eg. merchants being double spent), but I think you're misunderstanding his motives.

                    "better functioning fee market" = "higher fees"

                    I think what he's referring to is that replace-by-fee enables users to re-transmit their transaction with a higher fee attached. So, rather than just waiting forever with their money locked up, they can do something about it.

                    "pressure to increase the blocksize" = "user demand"

                    It's more likely referring to fixing the "crash landing" hypothesis so that we can operate with full blocks and a functioning fee market. This would eliminate a source of pressure to raise the block size.

                    "users creating the most valuable transactions" = "financial middlemen"

                    Now and for the forseeable future, it probably just means "users who are not creating pointless spam".

                    As an aside, the white paper doesn't say transactions are irreversible, it says that get exponentially harder to reverse with each confirmation. Zero-confirmation transactions aren't even in the blockchain yet.

                    [–]btcdrak 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

                    Irreversible transactions

                    Transactions are never irreversible until confirmed (and deeply at that). 0-conf has never been "safe". RBF doesnt change this and remember miners are already free to choose the higher fees. Bitcoin XT has already been relaying double-spends too.

                    [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    But they worked that way as long as we just trust everyone to be good boys and girls. The Hearn security model.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                      [–][削除されました]  (8子コメント)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]SwagPokerz -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

                        As always, you're such an idiot.

                        • RBF allows a person to retransmit his transaction with a higher fee; this allows a person to broadcast exactly how much he values having his transaction get put into the blockchain (the more you value expediency, the higher the fee you're willing to pay).

                          Under RBF, you get what you pay for, and you don't get stuck with a bad bid; this allows the market to find the right price for getting into the blockchain under existing conditions (like, say, with a 1 MiB block).

                        • However, it's possible that no solution is valid with RBF alone: If it becomes too expensive to get into the blockchain in a reasonable amount of time, then people will stop using Bitcoin. That means miners will stop seeing income growth. That means miner's will be forced to improve their product. That means miners will be forced to do something like increase the block size in order to accomodate transactions at a cheaper price.

                          In this way, the market settles on the optimal parameters (e.g., the optimal block size) for running the network.

                        The free market, you statist fool.

                        Follow the money.

                        That's exactly right. Money is a tool that tells you what is needed.

                        [–]nanoakron 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        RBF allows someone to retransmit their coins to spend them elsewhere, and provides a mechanism to make it much easier to encourage miners to process these attempts to defraud recipients.

                        FSS-RBF allows someone to retransmit their coins to the same recipients, but change the confirmation probability en route.

                        [–]SwagPokerz -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        You are worrying about the security of zero-confirmation transactions. That's pointless; that's idiotic.

                        Bitcoin makes guarantees about only confirmations, especially with the problem of transaction malleability that exists today.

                        [–]nanoakron 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Receiving a £2 coin in exchange for a coffee means you're trusting that coin is not a forgery. Until it's deposited in your bank you haven't 'really' received it.

                        But you know what, we go around and act as though this isn't the case every single day. I'll even re-use that £2 I've received without running it through a bank first to 'confirm' it's genuine.

                        This is because the 0-conf spoofing of a £2 is so costly in terms of the effort involved and the punishments that may result.

                        Peter Todd has metaphorically made it far easier to make fake £2 coins, and you're saying that's not a problem.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                            [–]haakon 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

                            • Does Viacoin have replace-by-fee too?
                            • How can you sound the "consensus" alarm against Gavin while simultaneously making highly contentious unilateral moves like this?

                            [–]btcdrak 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            Viacoin does not have RBF at the moment. The problem for Viacoin is confirmations typically happen between 10-30 seconds making even fee bumping FSS-RBF unlikely to succeed.

                            How can you sound the "consensus" alarm against Gavin while simultaneously making highly contentious unilateral moves like this?

                            This isnt a consensus rule, just a relay and mempool policy. Unlike Gavin's proposal that requires everyone to agree, this can work with just one miner and a few relay nodes.

                            It's actually in the miners best interest to mine the higher fee and nothing stops them from doings so anyway. RBF is a logical development. This version of RBF is more contentious but first-seen 0-conf safe version is not contentious and actually a much requested feature by wallet developers.

                            [–]Kupsi[S] 21ポイント22ポイント  (70子コメント)

                            There are no requirements for the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the previous transaction.

                            I guess this will decrease the value of Bitcoin. Shouldn't miners leave F2Pool because of this?

                            [–]Chris_Pacia 28ポイント29ポイント  (6子コメント)

                            Yes! It makes bitcoin unusable for purchases at brick-and-mortar stores.

                            Contrary to Peter's assertions, the probability of a merchant who accepts zero-confirm transactions getting defrauded is currently very low. Lower than credit card charge back rates and merchants are more than capable of calculating that risk (even more so given the public nature of the blockchain) and pricing it in to their products.

                            This patch would dramatically increase the rate of double spends (the goals is basically a 100% success rate) and force merchants to require at least one confirmation. Which, of course, most brick-and-mortar stores cannot do.

                            The only way to try to salvage it would be to use the scorched earth tactic which requires all buyers to pay extra for the product and get a refund after for the difference after it confirms.

                            I contend the UX for that is so poor it would seriously harm bitcoin adoption.

                            [–]LiteCoinProphet 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            PETER SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST DOUCHEBAG IN BITCOIN.

                            [–]finway 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            So F2Pool just became a double-spending pool, Great! I conside this as an attack from F2pool.

                            [–]hahanee -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            So F2Pool just became a double-spending more economically rational pool, Great!

                            ftfy

                            [–]finway 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Rational or not, we will see. Since it's not adopted by most nodes, it's not much different from other double-spending attack from a pool. If it's considered as an attack, we'll see defense from the economic majority.

                            [–]Logical007 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            I'm getting tired of peter todd

                            [–]LiteCoinProphet 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            me too. He needs to go away.

                            [–]skajake 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            I really hope the community lets this sink in. Peter Todd and company's vision is for Bitcoin to fail as a payment system.

                            [–]BTCisGod 7ポイント8ポイント  (17子コメント)

                            There are no requirements for the replacement transaction to pay addresses that were paid by the previous transaction.

                            What is the reasoning, why not have RBF send only to the replaced TX's outputs?

                            [–]samurai321 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            this. just allow the people (anyone) to increase their fee!

                            コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

                              [–]tsontar 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              /u/petertodd's solution to double-spending: formalize it.

                              [–]cocoabitter 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Bitcoin is the solution to double spending

                              [–]yeeha4 30ポイント31ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Peter Todd. A pseudo intellectual who does nothing but damage bitcoin.

                              [–]PotatoBadger -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Sick ad hominem, bro.

                              Edit: You're attempting to discredit his argument with attacks on his personal character.

                              [–]Darft 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Agreed You can say what you want about his opinions, but he is not stupid.

                              [–]110101002 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

                              Hey guys, I love bad practices and I rely on the network and miners operating in an uneconomical way in order to secure my money. Every day I pay 10 bitcoins to a script that anyone can spend. This has worked for 4 years and no one has actually cashed in my bitcoins since my transaction is nonstandard and isn't relayed, however PETERTODD WANTS TO UNDERMINE MY SECURITY. But for the sake of "new features" and "rationality" peter is going to take away my ability to depend on security through obscurity.

                              [–]nanoakron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Well if that's true then you're an idiot. A rich idiot, but still an idiot.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                [–]jstolfi 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                I understand that BitPay does instantaneous payments because they monitor the network themselves and refuse to pay if they see a conflicting transaction already in the queue of some node. If this is correct, wouldn't the replace-by-fee change break this check, forcing BitPay to abandon instant payments?

                                [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                Maybe Bitpay shouldn't have relied on something not reliable.

                                Fortunately, most BitPay merchants can just cancel orders if someone tries this, since they won't ship instantly. Coffees remain affected.

                                [–]jstolfi 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                Maybe Bitpay shouldn't have relied on something not reliable.

                                Accepting zero-conf without any checking was very risky, but Bitpay was fairly safe because they checked the queues themselves and could predict that a transaction would confirm with (say) 99% accuracy. If I understand correctly, with Peter's unrestricted RBF that would no longer be the case, because the overriding transaction could be issued half an hour or more after the payment one. (If a backlog arises, the delay could be hours or days.)

                                F2Pool now realized what it meant, and retrated to the "safe" RBF that does not allow changing the outputs.

                                To be clear, this "safe" version was definitely not what Peter wanted. He proposed the unsafe RBF explicitly to force merchants to stop accepting zero-conf. No one liked the proposal, so apparently he decided to act "on his own solitary consensus".

                                The "safe" version of RBF is still sufficient for Blockstream's "master plan" of forcing the appearance of a "fee market" and pushing the "plebs" out of the blockchain and hopefully to their "overlay network".

                                [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                Even with checking it's risky. It's trivially easy to defeat before.

                                The idea you run nodes and check what mempools have for security is highly flawed. This measurement was bogus and inevitably going to be broken. Peter has warned for a long time that this was unsafe, and those who are still dumb enough to not take action are now vulnerable, but they have been warned plenty.

                                LOL "master plan blockstream". Ok, well, now I just realize you are a conspiracy nutter.

                                [–]jstolfi 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                Care to explain how one could "easily" defeat BitPay's checks?

                                Blockstream's "master plan" is no secret. They say explicitly that p2p transactions should be moved to the "overlay layer" and leave the blockchain for "industrial" transactions that can afford high fees.

                                [–]smartfbrankings 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                Send a transaction rejected by most of the network directly to a pool that mines them (say non-standard to Eligius).

                                Then send a transaction to the network that is standard. Done.

                                [–]jstolfi 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Wow. If that works, how is BitPay still in business, then?

                                [–]mperklin 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                I think this change to Bitcoin represents a serious threat to merchants and anyone who would receive bitcoin from senders.

                                This wasn't a good idea when he first started talking about it and it's even worse now that it's coded and implemented by a mining pool.

                                F2Pool should think critically about the benefits vs the drawbacks here. Peter - this is a bad change. Stop pushing it!

                                [–]bdangh 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                Fuck, boycott F2Pool, also other pools SHOULD not put their blocks after F2Pool blocks, this will make them think before applying policy supported by ideots trying to destroy bitcoin.

                                [–]samurai321 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Good news: they checked again and will use FSS RBF, meaning first seen tx will be safe again.

                                [–]GibbsSamplePlatter -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                These comments are just precious.

                                Rather than accept a long-term reality, your solution is to CREATE ARBITRARY SOFT FORKING RULES.

                                [–]BobAlison 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Nodes are already free to manipulate the memory pool in any way they choose. This move doesn't change anything about that.

                                The behavior of unconfirmed transactions is the composite result of how each node handles its own memory pool. Even the idea of "standard transactions" is just a suggestion.

                                F2Pool is simply manipulating its own memory pool for its own best interest. There's not a whole lot anyone else can do about it. Miners can leave, but if F2Pool becomes more profitable as a result of this change, those miners will be harming their own short-term economic interest.

                                It may appear that this move harms Bitcoin, but I suspect it will actually strengthen it. Instead of relying on an implicit, weak guarantee, those users wanting a robust solution to the coffee shop problem will have to create one.

                                [–]3xploit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Pete... after discussion with you? really? WOW!

                                [–]Introshine 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Does this not make double spending more easy? What does this help? What a stupid decision

                                [–]smartfbrankings 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Doublespends have always been easy if you accept 0-conf. Minor impact on already broken use case vs. stuck transactions gives a clear winner.

                                [–]mmeijeri -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Isn't it possible to devise a few rules of thumb that can reasonably accurately distinguish between true double spends and mere fee bumps?

                                [–]PhyllisWheatenhousen 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                What are the chances that a miner would even get the transaction? After 15 seconds or so most all nodes would have received the first transaction, if you sent a conflicting one they wouldn't relay it, correct?

                                [–]cbeast -1ポイント0ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                Peter Todd is going all-in. I'll give him credit for that win or lose.

                                [–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

                                [deleted]

                                  [–]BitFast -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                  how else do you propose you handle fuller blocks (which is bound to happen at 1MB or 8MB)

                                  [–]Vibr8gKiwi 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Remove the god damn block size caps! This whole thing is only happening because these fuckers won't let the cap go away and it's causing problems! The cap was never supposed to be kept!

                                  [–]aminok 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Safe RBF where double spends can only increase fees or amounts paid, and not cancel a payment. Why pretend full RBF is the only option?

                                  [–]BitFast -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  there are both options (both developed by Peter but there may be more implementations not open source) and miners are clearly free to pick, i argue that full rbf is simpler and better from various points of view (user experience, code complexity, efficiency, cost, reward)

                                  [–]hietheiy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  Oh wha da ya know. A dev going out and advocating economic policy decisions without consensus.

                                  [–]cocoabitter 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  no consensus required

                                  [–]110101002 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Oh wha da ya know, a miner running software without everyone on Reddits approval.

                                  [–]hietheiy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  This miner and Peter Todd constitute a hostile attack on the bitcoin network and should be judged as such.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)