> If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity; then 15% now would have grown from perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth, getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years.
I'd caution against any metrics-based approach like this, unless it's simply used for ballparking potential adoption curves to set a a timeframe people can live with. A large number of coins/users sit on custodial rails and this would essentially encumber protocol developers to those KYC/AML institutions. If Binance decides to never support Lightning in favor of BNC-wrapped BTC, should this be an issue at all for reasoning about a path forward? Hoping to be wrong, Greg On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:59 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > If someone's going to systematically exploit your store via this > > > mechanism, it seems like they'd just find a single wallet with a good > > > UX for opt-in RBF and lowballing fees, and go to town -- not something > > > where opt-in rbf vs fullrbf policies make any difference at all? > > Sort of. But yes once this starts being abused systemically we will have > to > > do something else w RBF payments, such as crediting the amount in BTC to > a > > custodial account. But this option isn't available to your normal payment > > processor type business. > > So, what I'm hearing is: > > * lightning works great, but is still pretty small > * zeroconf works great for txs that opt-out of RBF > * opt-in RBF is a pain for two reasons: > - people don't like that it's not treated as zeroconf > - the risk of fiat/BTC exchange rate changes between > now and when the tx actually confirms is worrying > even if it hasn't caused real problems yet > > (Please correct me if that's too far wrong) > > Maybe it would be productive to explore this opt-in RBF part a bit > more? ie, see if "we" can come up with better answers to some question > along the lines of: > > "how can we make on-chain payments for goods priced in fiat work well > for payees that opt-in to RBF?" > > That seems like the sort of thing that's better solved by a collaboration > between wallet devs and merchant devs (and protocol devs?), rather than > just one or the other? > > Is that something that we could talk about here? Or maybe it's better > done via an optech workgroup or something? > > If "we'll credit your account in BTC, then work out the USD coversion > and deduct that for your purchase, then you can do whatever you like > with any remaining BTC from your on-chain payment" is the idea, maybe we > should just roll with that design, but make it more decentralised: have > the initial payment setup a lightning channel between the customer and > the merchant with the BTC (so it's not custodial), but do some magic to > allow USD amounts to be transferred over it (Taro? something oracle based > so that both parties are confident a fair exchange rate will be used?). > > Maybe that particular idea is naive, but having an actual problem to > solve seems more constructive than just saying "we want rbf" "but we > want zeroconf" all the time? > > (Ideally the lightning channels above would be dual funded so they could > be used for routing more generally; but then dual funded channels are > one of the things that get broken by lack of full rbf) > > > > I thought the "normal" avenue for fooling non-RBF zeroconf was to > create > > > two conflicting txs in advance, one paying the merchant, one paying > > > yourself, connect to many peers, relay the one paying the merchant to > > > the merchant, and the other to everyone else. > > > I'm just basing this off Peter Todd's stuff from years ago: > > > > https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40ejy8/peter_todd_with_my_doublespendpy_tool_with/cytlhh0/ > > > > https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob/master/doublespend.py > > Yeah, I know the list still rehashes a single incident from 10 years ago > to > > declare the entire practice as unsafe, and ignores real-world data that > of > > the last million transactions we had zero cases of this successfully > > abusing us. > > I mean, the avenue above isn't easy to exploit -- you have to identify > the merchant's node so that they get the bad tx, and you have to connect > to many peers so that your preferred tx propogates to miners first -- > and probably more importantly, it's relatively easy to detect -- if the > merchant has a few passive nodes that the attacker doesn't know about > it, and uses those to watch for attempted doublespends while it tries > to ensure the real tx has propogated widely. So it doesn't surprise me > at all that it's not often attempted, and even less often successful. > > > > > Currently Lightning is somewhere around 15% of our total bitcoin > > > > payments. > > > So, based on last year's numbers, presumably that makes your bitcoin > > > payments break down as something like: > > > 5% txs are on-chain and seem shady and are excluded from zeroconf > > > 15% txs are lightning > > > 20% txs are on-chain but signal rbf and are excluded from zeroconf > > > 60% txs are on-chain and seem fine for zeroconf > > Numbers are right. Shady is too strong a word, > > Heh, fair enough. > > So the above suggests 25% of payments already get a sub-par experience, > compared to what you'd like them to have (which sucks, but if you're > trying to reinvent both money and payments, maybe isn't surprising). And > going full rbf would bump that from 25% to 85%, which would be pretty > terrible. > > > RBF is a strictly worse UX as proven by anyone > > accepting bitcoin payments at scale. > > So let's make it better? Building bitcoin businesses on the lie that > unconfirmed txs are safe and won't be replaced is going to bite us > eventually; focussing on trying to push that back indefinitely is just > going to make everyone less prepared when it eventually happens. > > > > > For me > > > > personally it would be an easier discussion to have when Lightning > is at > > > > 80%+ of all bitcoin transactions. > > > Can you extrapolate from the numbers you've seen to estimate when that > > > might be, given current trends? > > Not sure, it might be exponential growth, and the next 60% of Lightning > > growth happen faster than the first 15%. Hard to tell. But we're likely > > talking years here.. > > Okay? Two years is very different from 50 years, and at the moment there's > not really any data, so people are just going to go with their gut... > > If it were growing in line with lightning capacity in BTC, per > bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity; then 15% now would have grown from > perhaps 4% in May 2021, so perhaps 8% per year. With linear growth, > getting from 15% to 80% would then be about 8 years. > > Presumably that's a laughably terrible model, of course. But if we had > some actual numbers where we can watch the progress, it might be a lot > easier to be patient about waiting for lightning adoption to hit 80% > or whatever, and focus on productive things in the meantime? > > Cheers, > aj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
