Some further clarity on our unique trx hashes queried to our platform, our initial and followup numbers on unique trx hashes queried were not accurate - apologies. Bitcoin addresses queried and Usd value and unique were accurate. This is as a result of our platform viewing each queried bitcoin address as a transaction from our point of view.
November 2022 Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.5m trxs Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried- circa 500k USD value - circa 220m December 2022 Total queried unique bitcoin address- circa 1.7m trxs Unique Bitcoin trx hashes queried - circa 500k USD value - circa 200m There are further merchants and service providers who enable 0-conf on Bitcoin who are not working via our platform - I do not know their numbers but believe they are significant. 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood risks is a significant use case. For third party clarification please see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021239.html and https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-December/021238.html ________________________________ Daniel Lipshitz GAP600| www.gap600.com On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15 PM Daniel Lipshitz <dan...@gap600.com> wrote: > > > > 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
