Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:39:32PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2017 7:24:04 PM Sjors Provoost wrote:
> > I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default,
> > which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for merchants
> > who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo suggested
> > that wallets honor a no125=1 flag.
> > 
> > So a BIP-21 URI would look like this:
> > bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=20.3&no125=1
> > 
> > When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their
> > default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference.
> 
> This seems counterproductive. There is no reason to ever avoid the RBF flag. 
> I'm not aware of any evidence it even reduces risk of, and it certainly 
> doesn't prevent double spending. Plenty of miners allow RBF regardless of the 
> flag, and malicious double spending doesn't benefit much from RBF in any case.

I'll second the objection to a no-RBF flag.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]