On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:58:37PM +, angus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Those in favour of Full RBF see trusting and relying on predictable
> mempool policy as a fundamentally flawed bad idea.
I don't believe that claim is true, at least in general: the motivation
for the -mempoolfullrbf PR was t
Zman,
Price Theory simply explains the relationship between supply & demand. Your
post makes some logical leaps in that you are implying that demand follows
supply, which of course is not true, nor is that a claim of Price Theory.
If Bitcoin has less utility, it will have less demand, regardless o
Good morning John, et al,
> > As has been pointed out by may others before, full RBF is aligned with
> > miner (and user) economic incentives
>
>
> This is a theory, not a fact. I can refute this theory by pointing out
> several aspects:
> 1. RBF is actually a fee-minimization feature that al
I think the fundamental disagreement here that's causing the controversy and
impasse is this:
Those in favour of Full RBF see trusting and relying on predictable mempool
policy as a fundamentally flawed bad idea. Node policy is not a consensus rule
- a miner has always been allowed to produce
>
>
>
> Many zero-conf proponents work on the bleeding edge of supporting
> Lightning, including myself. Lightning is not risk-free and the base layer
> should not be assuming it as a primary dependency for commercial payments.
>
for low-value payments, lightning is the only workable version becau
>
> The perception seems to be that Core adding the full RBF option is
> increasing the risk to zero-conf users, but I'm not convinced that that is
> the case.
If this "perception" were not true, RBF & full-RBF would not be necessary
at all. Think about it.
It's always been the risk of getting d
