On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 1:53 AM Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:06:15AM +0200, Daniel Lipshitz wrote: > > GAP600 is not a trxs processor or liquidity provider we service > merchants, > > payment processors & non-custodial liquidity providers - our service is > > purely the 0-conf enabling our clients to accept 0-conf. Clients access > our > > service via API - sending us the Trx hash & output address. Our service > is > > not based on AML/KYC it is purely an analysis of the Bitcoin network. > > I checked and to sign up for your service, you ask for the name, phone > number, > email, and company name. > > That is an example of AML/KYC. By learning the tx hash and output address, > you > learn which addresses are associated with what real world entity is paying > for > your service. You learning that information for what you claim is ~10% of > all > transactions is a significant privacy concern. On that basiss alone, I > would > argue that full-rbf should be implemented specifically to destroy your > business > and stop the collection of that data. > > We have standard commercial information about the payment processors, non custodial liquidity providers and merchants which become our clients - we do not have any kyc/aml information or telephone number on who is sending our clients the bitcoin for deposit. For us these are just bitcoin Trx which our clients choose to benefit from 0-conf deposit recognition. Our service is provided via API with the only information our clients share with us, regarding a specific bitcoin transaction, being public bitcoin information like trx hash and output address. > I am not at liberty to share names of other services which have developed > > their own 0-conf service - they include a payment processor on a gambling > > platform which services multiple gambling operators, a standalone gaming > > payment processor, and a payment processor recently I have come across. > We > > also do not have a significant presence in Asia - so I don't have > > visibility there. > > No, I asked you for information on what companies are actually using *your* > service. You claim to be involved with a huge % of all transactions. If > that is > in fact true, obviously it shouldn't be hard to provide some examples of > merchants using GAP600 to accept unconfirmed txs. > As already posted here https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021240.html Max CEO from Coinspaid who has provided Cpoinspaid address clusters, see link, is available to discuss further and may choose to share further information on the merchants they support. > > > I don't see it being necessarily an either/or approach here. The risk > > looking to be mitigated with FullRBF seems to be able to be mitigated > with > > FullRBF but with a swop limitation of at least the Inputs of Trx1 being > in > > Trx2 - no flagging required. Added to this all these trxs always have the > > OptinRBF so if these platforms need to be able to recreate completely > their > > trxs they have that option as well. The option to Swop out or bump up > trxs > > seems to be well covered under those two options. > > You are not correct. One of the most important use-cases for full-rbf is > multi-party transactions; adding that limitation to full-rbf negates that > usecase. See my post on why full-rbf makes DoS attacks on multiparty > protocols > significantly more expensive: > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021322.html I also note that there is ongoing debate as to the need for full RBF see here https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021331.html . This seems to be an extreme edge case - with Opt-in RBF, FSS Full RBF and common sense - offering enough coverage to mitigate. 0-conf although may not be liked by some actors in Bitcoin, is engaged with free choice and understanding of the risks. 0-conf is a long standing and significant use case which should not be ignored. 0-conf demise should be viewed as being a major and unnecessary cost to FullRBF as currently implemented. > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
