š
Original date posted:2022-10-20
š Original message:On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > And the
> > impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like
> > devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to
> > them (eg "[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolutely
> > cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so").
>
> Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main coinjoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF making any remarks.
FYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last night.
He gave me permission to republish our conversation:
> Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi?
Doesn't really affect us, afaik
The cj doesn't signal rbf right now
And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed after successful signing
But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get "exploited"
So probably doesn't matter
Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be alright
We don't yet "use" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / will eventually
I haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation should
be very similar.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/f687b805/attachment-0001.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 23:14:26
in reply to nevent1qā¦hcvh
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 23:14:26Event JSON
{
"id": "6bcd57582f612cf8b4bbf9a5d5a2173930f932afbad3e48912321ac320348ee0",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179666,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"946b9a8231803f73c278c08ca74b58bc34d6ba681eae8ff2a82e75b78f2e09ab",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"706063c57f67af2f930df9c09ee89253283eb09344305b94c4abfbaf8f7c46a6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"745e2723e72d7ded3f0dd293d710b706cd302ab8476983c292d4bdb7f9c5d366"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-10-20\nš Original message:On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e And the\n\u003e \u003e impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like\n\u003e \u003e devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to\n\u003e \u003e them (eg \"[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolutely\n\u003e \u003e cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so\").\n\u003e \n\u003e Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main coinjoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF making any remarks.\n\nFYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last night.\nHe gave me permission to republish our conversation:\n\n \u003e Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi?\n\n Doesn't really affect us, afaik\n The cj doesn't signal rbf right now\n And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed after successful signing\n But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get \"exploited\"\n So probably doesn't matter\n Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be alright\n We don't yet \"use\" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / will eventually\n\nI haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation should\nbe very similar.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/f687b805/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "59bac389bcacf7d700e4f1975d6658794244d38ced8ea059b295a4af086acfae0b61aafa6f0b3640d2d4c136c191c7c907635ed74ab75f69f3be4012f2745eb1"
}