public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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