Jeremy [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-09-19 📝 Original message:Hi Cory! Thanks for taking ...

📅 Original date posted:2020-09-19
📝 Original message:Hi Cory!

Thanks for taking a look. CC nopara as I think your questions are the same.

I think there are a few reason we won't see functionally worse privacy:

1. RBF/CPFP may require the use of an external to the original transaction
to pay sufficient fee.
2. RBF/CPFP may leak which address was the change and which was the payment.

In addition, I think there is a benefit in that:

1. RBF/CPFP requires access to the keys in the same 'security zone' as the
payment you made (e.g., if it's a multi-sig to multi-sig requires m of N to
cpfp/or RBF, whereas sponsors could be anyone).
2. Sponsors can be a fully separate arbitrary wallet.
3. You can continually coinjoin the funds in your fee-paying wallet without
tainting your main funds.
4. You can keep those funds in a lightning channel and pay your fees via
loop outs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200919/d5b8bdac/attachment.html>;