Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Thanks for asking *the* question, Jeff. We often get caught up in these > philosophical debates…but at the end of the day we need something concrete. > > Even more important than the specific software you’re using is the > security policy.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

We should use relay and default tx selection rules to raise the cost of double spend attacks as far as it is easy and practical to do so. This increases the value of the bitcoin network by making it practical to use in more situations for more people. Merchants of course can't rely on them being cr

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Btc Drak wrote: > > Eric, > > BitPay clearly do understand the risks of 0-conf. In case you were not aware > BitPay does not particularly "accept zero confirm transactions". When a > payment is seen on the network the payment screen reports the invoice has > be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Eric, BitPay clearly do understand the risks of 0-conf. In case you were not aware BitPay does not particularly "accept zero confirm transactions". When a payment is seen on the network the payment screen reports the invoice has been paid, but that's front-end user facing. On the back end it's mar

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:45 PM, Jeff Garzik > > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo > > wrote: >> but we NEED to be applying some kind of pressure on the me

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:45 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: > but we NEED to be applying some kind of pressure on the merchant end to > upgrade their stuff to be more resilient > > Can you be specific? What preci

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > but we NEED to be applying some kind of pressure on the merchant end to > upgrade their stuff to be more resilient > Can you be specific? What precise technical steps would you have BitPay and Coinbase do? We upgrade our stuff to... what

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On 6/20/2015 5:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Perhaps it isn’t prudent to push out changes to the relay policy that make > these exploits even easier right now - but we NEED to be applying some kind > of pressure on the merchant end to upgrade their stuff to be more resilient > so that we have mo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Sorry about that, ignore me On Jun 20, 2015 11:11 PM, "Dario Sneidermanis" wrote: > se, lo re putearon a Peter Todd en reddit por esto > On Jun 19, 2015 7:42 AM, "Peter Todd" wrote: > >> Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing >> power, enabled full replace-by-fee (R

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

se, lo re putearon a Peter Todd en reddit por esto On Jun 19, 2015 7:42 AM, "Peter Todd" wrote: > Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing > power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with > me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

One more thing I would like to add to this thread: I want to make it unequivocally clear that I believe what is making double-spends easier has relatively little to do with the protocol and almost everything to do with poor software and poor security policy on the merchant end. Perhaps it isn’t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:27 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 2015-06-20 19:19, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: > >> > >> Signed PGP part > >> On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2015-06-20 19:19, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo >> > wrote: >> >> If we wan

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo > > wrote: > >> If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should > >> explicitly define one rather than

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >>> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the >>> requirement that it can withstand deliberate doubl

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

I should also add that I think many in this space believe they have assessed the risk as acceptable but haven’t really considered how to cap potential losses nor made contingency plans for when the inevitable attacks *do* come. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >> The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the >> requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can >> come from anywhere at any time… >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: >> If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should >> explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” >> assumptions. Oth

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly > define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I > would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof > of i

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement > that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from > anywhere at any time… I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an ar

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter, Recently there was a brouhaha over Coinbase censoring the ability of firearms businesses to accept bitcoins via Coinbase https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agbs7/coinbase_shuts_down_bit coin_biz_for_firearms/ The question and relevance

[Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Ivan Brightly > wrote: > Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffee store. > Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it's not > worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other side, the > store can deal with 1

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Yep - similarly: you live in a neighborhood with a local coffee store. Sure you could use a stolen credit card or a fake $5 bill, but it's not worth the risk of being caught for a $3 coffee. And on the other side, the store can deal with 1% of transactions getting reversed or having a fake bill so

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:23:03 AM Aaron Voisine wrote: >> They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to be >> safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged back. As >> long as it's reasonably go

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:23:03 AM Aaron Voisine wrote: > They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to be > safer than, for instance, credit card payments that can be charged back. As > long as it's reasonably good in practice, that's fine. They never will be. You can ge

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

It all comes down to managing risk. If you’ve got a decent risk model with capped losses and safe recovery mechanisms…and it’s still profitable…it’s fine. But most payment processors and merchants right now probably don’t have particularly good risk models and are making many dangerous assumptio

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe. They don't need to be made cryptographically safe, they just have to be safer than, fo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides, for example), which enable untrusted instant payments. Not reliance on single-signer zeroconf transactions that can never be made safe. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote: > I have some experience her

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

I have some experience here. If you are seriously suggesting these measures, you might as well kill retail transactions altogether. In practice, if a retail place starts to accept bitcoin they have a similar situation as with cash, only that the fraud potential is much lower. (e.g. 100-dollar bill

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Double spend detection is by definition best-effort. The purpose of bitcoin is to provide security (confirmations) to otherwise insecure, possibly double spent transactions. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Frank Flores wrote: > Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespe

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior? On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote: > > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote: > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will actively > harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or POS > merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all. Retail POS merchants probably should

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

It seems to me that FSS RBF must enforce identical OP_RETURN data on the output scripts as the first seen transaction, as well, to safely continue support for various other applications built atop the blockchain. Is there a canonical implementation of FSS RBF around somewhere I can review? Best

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 17:50, Jeff Garzik wrote: > No. You cannot know which is the 'right' or wrong transaction. One tx > has > obvious nSequence adjustments, the other - the refund transaction - may > not. I'm still not seeing a case where a node could

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, wrote: > On 2015-06-19 17:40, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of >> various refund contract protocols. >> > > Is there not a dedicated field in a transaction (nSequence) for express > purpose of indicati

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 17:40, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Making multiple incompatible versions of a spend is a -requirement- of > various refund contract protocols. Is there not a dedicated field in a transaction (nSequence) for express purpose of indicating when

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, wrote: > If we have ECDSA proof that an entity intentionally made and publicly > announced incompatible promises regarding the disposition of particular > Bitcoins under their control, then why shouldn't that be assumed to be a > fraud attempt unless shown otherwi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should > explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. > Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed > transaction as proof of int

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 16:42, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should > explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” > assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence > of a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:42:33AM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly > define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I > would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

"prima facie" generally means that in a court case the burden of proof shifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal trademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights even though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would have prima fas

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Even if you could prove "intent to pay," this would be almost useless. I can sincerely intend to do a lot of things, but this doesn't mean I'll ever actually do them. I am in favor of more zero-confirmation transactions being reversed / double-spent. Bitcoin users largely still believe that acc

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 16:36, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: >> I'd also like to note that "prima facie" doesn't mean "always", it >> means >> that "the default assumption, unless proven otherwise.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of intent to pay… > On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock w

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:18:54AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote: > > > > > So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not technically > > > prevented is bad for the network and creating systemic risks of failure, > > > > Well it is actually; that's why myself, Wladimir van der Laan, an

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: > I'd also like to note that "prima facie" doesn't mean "always", it means > that "the default assumption, unless proven otherwise." Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the null hypothesis be the defau

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> > > So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not technically > > prevented is bad for the network and creating systemic risks of failure, > > Well it is actually; that's why myself, Wladimir van der Laan, and > Gregory Maxwell all specifically¹ called Chainalysis's actions a sybil

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:44:08AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:33:05AM -0400, Stephen Morse wrote: > > It is disappointing that F2Pool would enable full RBF when the safe > > alternative, first-seen-safe RBF, is also available, especially since the > > fees they would gain

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 15:37, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > OK, a few things here: > > The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the > requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that > can come from anywhere at any time…an

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Yes, FSS RBF is far better. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > Before F2Pool's launch, I performed probably the only successful > bitcoin double spend in the March 2013 fork without any mining power. > [ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0 ] I kn

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Having said that... honestly, zeroconf is pretty broken already. Only > with pretty heroic measures like connecting to a significant fraction of > the Bitcoin network at once, as well as connecting to getblocktemplate > supporting miners to fig

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote: > > > > Unless you're sybil attacking the network and miners, consuming valuable > > resources and creating systemic risks of failure like we saw with > > Chainalysis, I don't see how you're getting "very small" double-spend > > probab

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

This is very disappointing. "scorched earth" replace-by-fee implemented first at a pool, without updating wallets and merchants, is very anti-social and increases the ability to perform Finney attacks and double-spends. The community is progressing more towards a safer replace-by-fee model, as in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 15:11, Peter Todd wrote: > If you ask me to pay you 1BTC at address A and I create tx1 that pays > 1BTC to A1 and 2BTC of chain to C, what's wrong with me creating tx2 > that still pays 1BTC to A, but now only pays 1.999BTC to C? I'm no

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

OK, a few things here: The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from anywhere at any time…and relaxing this assumption without adequately assessing the risk (i.e. I’ve never been hacked befo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Great. Thank you for this! Adrian On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Adrian Macneil > wrote: > > However, we do rely pretty heavily on zeroconf transactions for merchant > > processing, so if any significant portion of the m

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> > Unless you're sybil attacking the network and miners, consuming valuable > resources and creating systemic risks of failure like we saw with > Chainalysis, I don't see how you're getting "very small" double-spend > probabilities. > So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:00:57PM +, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: > On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote: > > Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing > power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions > with > me. This means t

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2015-06-19 10:39, Peter Todd wrote: Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:30:17AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote: > > In that case would you enter into such contracts? > > > > We take it as it comes. > > Currently, it's perfectly possible to accept zeroconf transactions with > only a very small chance of double spend. As long as it's only possib

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Adrian Macneil wrote: > However, we do rely pretty heavily on zeroconf transactions for merchant > processing, so if any significant portion of the mining pools started > running your unsafe RBF patch, then we would probably need to look into this > as a way to pr

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> > > We have no contracts in place or plans to do this that I am aware of. > > > > However, we do rely pretty heavily on zeroconf transactions for merchant > > processing, so if any significant portion of the mining pools started > > running your unsafe RBF patch, then we would probably need to lo

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Chun Wang <1240902 gmail.com> writes: > Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks. FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF. We think Full RBF is better for a number of reasons: -user experience -efficiency -cost -code complexity We

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:00:56AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote: > > > > For instance, if Coinbase had > > contracts with 80% of the Bitcoin hashing power to guarantee their > > transactions would get mined, but 20% of the hashing power didn't sign > > up, then the only way to guarantee their transa

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Extremely disappointed to hear this. This change turns double spending from a calculable (and affordable) risk for merchant payment processors into certain profit for scammers, and provides no useful benefit for consumers. I sincerely hope that F2Pool reconsider, given that RBF will decrease the o

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

> > For instance, if Coinbase had > contracts with 80% of the Bitcoin hashing power to guarantee their > transactions would get mined, but 20% of the hashing power didn't sign > up, then the only way to guarantee their transactions could be for the > 80% to not build on blocks containing doublespen

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Before F2Pool's launch, I performed probably the only successful bitcoin double spend in the March 2013 fork without any mining power. [ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0 ] I know how bad the full RBF is. We are going to switch to FSS RBF in a few hours. Sorry. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:33:03AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > I just sent the following email to F2Pool: > > > I was disappointed to see Peter Todd claiming that you have (or will?) run > his replace-by-fee patch. > > I strongly encourage you to wait until most wallet software supports > rep

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:37:49PM +0800, Chun Wang wrote: > Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks. No worries, let me know if you have any issues. You have my phone number. While my own preference - and a number of other devs - is full-RBF, either one is a good

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:33:05AM -0400, Stephen Morse wrote: > It is disappointing that F2Pool would enable full RBF when the safe > alternative, first-seen-safe RBF, is also available, especially since the > fees they would gain by supporting full RBF over FSS RBF would likely be > negligible. D

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Stephen Morse wrote: > It is disappointing that F2Pool would enable full RBF when the safe > alternative, first-seen-safe RBF, is also available, especially since the > fees they would gain b

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

I just sent the following email to F2Pool: I was disappointed to see Peter Todd claiming that you have (or will?) run his replace-by-fee patch. I strongly encourage you to wait until most wallet software supports replace-by-fee before doing that, because until that happens replace-by-fee just ma

Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

It is disappointing that F2Pool would enable full RBF when the safe alternative, first-seen-safe RBF, is also available, especially since the fees they would gain by supporting full RBF over FSS RBF would likely be negligible. Did they consider using FSS RBF instead? Best, Stephen On Fri, Jun 19,

[Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee

Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me. This means that transactions that F2Pool has will be replaced if a conflicting transaction pays a higher fee. There are no requirements for the replacemen