📅 Original date posted:2022-12-13
📝 Original message:Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with
the design?
While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more
doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) I
think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.
--
John Carvalho
CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>;
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel at gap600.com> wrote:
> Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being aware
> of it.
>
> First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
> by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route
> which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case.
>
> This would seem like a good way forward.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch at woobling.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221213/c18094a9/attachment-0001.html>;
John Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1qg…nqm4r
2023-06-07 23:17:42
in reply to nevent1q…67ky
Author Public Key
npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4rPublished at
2023-06-07 23:17:42Event JSON
{
"id": "6275ae5929df3a2862b7a4ee71b2fb6b2d9949d32dae547f7dc6ea6b7a009f41",
"pubkey": "02283afe5d7e6355ba7a0c2f5283e3149f651dab319cfb553d46a1d180234ed5",
"created_at": 1686179862,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"25f605421c4fbd232e596dae47a53ef1bea24a0bb884796971a01a9714ed6f81",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b72944e3aa675303815da6099b6ec8cbbfba464c15c2c7491b1106a5f753e19c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"597ddb53eb981ecf2a6caca109ddcf48de5e99c06614fd2a324b66c1f65dcfa6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-12-13\n📝 Original message:Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with\nthe design?\n\nWhile I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more\ndoublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) I\nthink discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.\n\n--\nJohn Carvalho\nCEO, Synonym.to \u003chttp://synonym.to/\u003e\n\n\nOn Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz \u003cdaniel at gap600.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being aware\n\u003e of it.\n\u003e\n\u003e First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html\n\u003e by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route\n\u003e which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case.\n\u003e\n\u003e This would seem like a good way forward.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ________________________________\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman \u003cnothingmuch at woobling.org\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221213/c18094a9/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "5ab38b967e23d681006c712f6ad4b070f775e939922539382f0398b9cc4d6957760f6aa58d4fc8cf1d9e707113743d3e94f7a524fbd37a9aeb62fa9d379cb99a"
}