From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
To: linuxfoundation.cndm1@dralias.com
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s security
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:47:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <PR0Y8mPL6L0jZaTNX8_Qlx9qfRgVD6sYxS6tHNyqOzLPnetSBYkfhR_dmzsGpMCJ8olH5VXXDnMzqkief9ExCoCr41tkXyz36QIrQzACF1M=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <165535822613.7.2651335771202625212.47284609@dralias.com>
Hi cndm1,
> If you see a "lack of basic options" and no one has opened a pull request for it, it may be for two reasons.
The basic option to disable all RBF policies in a node's mempool if required was removed in [PR #16171][1]. No one has opened a pull request to revert this because most of the maintainers and a few reviewers agreed with this change. It wasn't required, PR had weak rationale, 2 NACKS and was reopened to merge because some reviewers/maintainers believe its a policy that cannot be maintained. One of the reviewers who NACKed it already maintains the config option to disable all RBF policies in Bitcoin Knots which is a derivative of Bitcoin Core.
> However, repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in open source software development.
I am not demanding anyone to add a few lines of code and open a pull request. I am _reviewing_ a pull request in an open source project and sharing my feedback. Even Antoine and Luke agreed to add it if other reviewers have no issues or I can do it. This option in context with another being added for a new RBF policy was being discussed in [PR #25353][2] and my earlier emails in this thread.
Other 'basic options' will be easier to accommodate with `-mempoolreplacement` used in [PR #25373] which is unlikely to be merged.
[1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16171
[2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353
[3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25373
/dev/fd0
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, June 16th, 2022 at 11:13 AM, linuxfoundation.cndm1--- via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> alicexbt wrote:
>
> > I do not have issues with multiple RBF policies being tried out and full-rbf being one of them. My disagreements are with rationale, lack of basic options in Bitcoin Core to employ/disable different RBF policies and a few arguments made in support for full-rbf. Whether it appears strawman or offtopic on github, there should be a place to share these disagreements.
>
> Bitcoin Core is open source software, where developers open pull
> requests to try to get them merged after review. If you see a "lack of
> basic options" and no one has opened a pull request for it, it may be
> for two reasons. First, it could be that it just doesn't make sense,
> so no one sees a point in implementing it. Secondly, it may be that it
> isn't on anyone's list of priorities. In the second case, you are
> welcome to share your preference once. Moreover, no one is holding you
> back to implement it yourself and suggest a pull request. However,
> repeatedly demanding others to do it for you is not helpful in open
> source software development.
>
> cndm1
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-16 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-14 0:25 [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s security Antoine Riard
2022-06-15 2:27 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-15 2:53 ` Luke Dashjr
2022-06-15 3:18 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-16 0:16 ` alicexbt
2022-06-16 1:02 ` Greg Sanders
2022-06-16 1:45 ` alicexbt
2022-06-16 5:43 ` linuxfoundation.cndm1
2022-06-16 12:47 ` alicexbt [this message]
2022-06-16 13:24 ` Greg Sanders
[not found] ` <gmDNbfrrvaZL4akV2DFwCuKrls9SScQjqxeRoEorEiYlv24dPt1j583iOtcB2lFrxZc59N3kp7T9KIM4ycl4QOmGBfDOUmO-BVHsttvtvDc=@protonmail.com>
2022-06-17 1:34 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-17 4:54 ` alicexbt
2022-06-19 10:42 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-21 23:43 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-26 16:40 ` alicexbt
2022-06-27 0:43 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-27 12:03 ` Greg Sanders
2022-06-27 13:46 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-05 20:46 ` alicexbt
2022-07-08 14:53 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-08 15:09 ` Greg Sanders
2022-07-08 19:44 ` alicexbt
2022-07-09 15:06 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-20 23:49 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-21 23:45 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-23 19:13 ` Peter Todd
2022-08-24 1:56 ` Antoine Riard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='PR0Y8mPL6L0jZaTNX8_Qlx9qfRgVD6sYxS6tHNyqOzLPnetSBYkfhR_dmzsGpMCJ8olH5VXXDnMzqkief9ExCoCr41tkXyz36QIrQzACF1M=@protonmail.com' \
--to=alicexbt@protonmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linuxfoundation.cndm1@dralias.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox