> > 0-conf on Bitcoin with its understood risks is a significant use case > > and that use case doesn't change, at all, with full rbf. the risk > profile will, likely, remain the same. observation of the fee paid, > history of doing business with the customer, transaction size are all > needed. >
Currently 0-conf recognition is done without any KYC on the payor, this includes activities like, gaming, non-custodial trading and applications. In general OptinRBF is not possible to offer 0-conf since as soon as it is recognised it can be double spent. Full RBF would make all trxs just like OptinRBF. FullRBF but with FSS implemented will still enable 0-conf acceptance. > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 1:50 PM Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
