📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12
📝 Original message:Mike Hearn <mike <at> plan99.net> writes:
>
>
> I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly
is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives.
I disagree, I think it is inevitable (but then of course I'm probably biased
and why wouldn't I disagree given I run a service that allows for zero
confirmation/double spend protection with third party trust.)
Fixing it now avoids having people build on top of very weak/broken
foundations (see Coinbase https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-
wizards/msg/29818058/) which would cause bigger problems down the line.
One thing I don't understand from your position is how do you propose
handling transactions being stuck for days or longer because of low fees?
Even with floating fees you can have a sudden inflow of high fees
transactions taking over post broadcasting your transaction.
I also assume restricted replacement is very hard, especially from a UX point
of view and adds undue complexity
Lawrence Nahum [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q9…w5u98
2023-06-07 15:30:27
in reply to nevent1q…ekmq
Author Public Key
npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98Published at
2023-06-07 15:30:27Event JSON
{
"id": "f3844f1e38b3f9bbeb1d03ced6a4863e1c08bfd44f8c25f35ba1ff6eb83adc57",
"pubkey": "01743d784a0a13a1222bf0ac66fbc96a0423e7977745bb36f5eb47f1fd757f26",
"created_at": 1686151827,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ba772dbf5c965827fc712af37e2abb78447348cb2e1023b6358796cc65e7b8fb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"557423fed78f5aa10dfce350f27be4bf9f6d0aaedebe7c853b3872a010afd178",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12\n📝 Original message:Mike Hearn \u003cmike \u003cat\u003e plan99.net\u003e writes:\n\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly \nis based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives.\n\nI disagree, I think it is inevitable (but then of course I'm probably biased \nand why wouldn't I disagree given I run a service that allows for zero \nconfirmation/double spend protection with third party trust.)\n\nFixing it now avoids having people build on top of very weak/broken \nfoundations (see Coinbase https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-\nwizards/msg/29818058/) which would cause bigger problems down the line.\n\nOne thing I don't understand from your position is how do you propose \nhandling transactions being stuck for days or longer because of low fees?\n\nEven with floating fees you can have a sudden inflow of high fees \ntransactions taking over post broadcasting your transaction.\n\nI also assume restricted replacement is very hard, especially from a UX point \nof view and adds undue complexity",
"sig": "0ccc0089489999772ffb43482405bc5150ece0b7f93f4f3e75e6546cbcc63b072cdde7ff22b6b0405bcd3825e4281a7565c51c79072239b8b49e7f60c367d0e7"
}