Replace-By-Fee: A Counter Argument

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Just no.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d#.asn8rqiex

Repeating past statements, it is acknowledged that Peter’s scorched
earth replace-by-fee proposal is aptly named, and would be widely
anti-social on the current network
—Jeff Garzik
 
RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin.
 — Charlie Lee, engineering manager at Coinbase

Replace-by-fee is a bad idea.
 — Gavin Andresen

I agree with Mike & Jeff. Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism.
— Adam Back (a founder of Blockstream)

[coinzat]

I do not think we need to deal with 0 confirmation transactions. waiting for 10 or 20 minutes for the first confirmation is not a big deal for me

Replace-By-Fee can really help to cancel any transaction was sent by mistake. I will consider it as a few minutes charge back service

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

RBF will kill digital sales and push merchants away. I don't get it, who was asking for this?

[GamerSg]

RBF is opt-in, so it is not forced on anyone.
You are free to not use it if you don't want to.
It just offers an additional option for those who need it.

So i really don't see what all the fuss is about.

[DumbFruit]

Just no.

Not an argument.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d#.asn8rqiex

He argues against the Scorched Earth Policy and I would agree that blindly accepting zero confirmation transactions all the time everywhere in any market is probably a bad idea. If it's not appropriate for a given market then zero confirmation transactions just won't be done, so what's the big deal?

He also argues against Replace By Fee by doing some weird equivocating. RBF isn't consensus code and could be implemented by miners at any time, and it's in their self-interest to do so because it allows them to mine blocks with the highest fees. That seems like pretty good reasoning but Mike says they shouldn't do it because RBF would lose them money in the long run. Huh?

In effect it argues that it’s “rational” to take a tiny increase in profit today even if that destroys your business and all the potential long term profits you could obtain tomorrow and the day after. This definition is absurd and no actual business works that way.

Talk about begging the question! He hasn't shown how RBF necessarily "destroys your business and all the potential long term profits".

Repeating past statements, it is acknowledged that Peter’s scorched
earth replace-by-fee proposal is aptly named, and would be widely
anti-social on the current network
—Jeff Garzik

Following a Scorched Earth Policy blindly and in all situations would probably be anti-social. So ya, I guess I'd acknowledge that too.

RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin.
 — Charlie Lee, engineering manager at Coinbase

Appealing to Authority.

Replace-by-fee is a bad idea.
 — Gavin Andresen

Appealing to Authority.

I agree with Mike & Jeff. Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism.
— Adam Back (a founder of Blockstream)

Appealing to Authority.

Probably the most important aspect of of Replace By Fee is that it allows people to increase the fee they're paying so that their transaction doesn't get stuck in the transaction queue. Even if zero-confirmation transactions aren't done at all, it's useful for that alone.

What's really bad is Mike Hearn seems perfectly aware that the current system of handling transactions in the Memory Pool causes a permanent back log, and then he went on to argue against the practical solution to that (RBF).
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32#.1sl3cov3d

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Hold please...

*Thinking*

[DieJohnny]

There is no problem with RBF. QR codes can be enhanced to indicate what type of txn is allowed, RBF or no. Wallets can be enhanced to check the QR and act accordingly informing the user. The exchange happens or it doesn't.

IF RBF is acceptable the payment now has an out for a small period of time. This supports someone making a mistake and fixing it quickly, a nice feature.

It can be unused otherwise.

Today 90% of my transactions are web based and I would use RBF on every one of these because you ALWAYS would like to review your txn AFTER you made it, I don't know anyone that doesn't.

Fear and FUD on this is insane.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Ok. There are some good thinks here.

*Thinks more*

[cypherblock]

This is pretty funny regardless of whether you like RBF or not:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zju81/rbf_optin_a_man_walk_in_a_bar_order_a_coffe_drink/cymp40r

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I just noticed this thread is in Technical Discussion. Did I open this thread in Technical Discussion? I don't know anything technical!

My mistake. Feel free to discuss tho.

[Cconvert2G36]

I just noticed this thread is in Technical Discussion. Did I open this thread in Technical Discussion? I don't know anything technical!

My mistake. Feel free to discuss tho.

How is this still up?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I just noticed this thread is in Technical Discussion. Did I open this thread in Technical Discussion? I don't know anything technical!

My mistake. Feel free to discuss tho.

How is this still up?

Brg444 would like to stop thinking. Now!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Opt-in RBF Is misunderstood -- Ask questions about it here

[kiblirov]

Any bitcoin enthusiast and supporter might always say "There is a big problem with Paypal - the charge back issue". While Paypal stays the world's largest merchant supported virtual payment network. Merchants are widely supporting it. Bitcoin has the major advantage of the non-reversal of the payment. So, it is better than Paypal. RBF may alter this to some extent. But still even if RBF is adapted, wide support of bitcoin won't stop. However, I don't want RBF.

[stasis-crypto]

Any bitcoin enthusiast and supporter might always say "There is a big problem with Paypal - the charge back issue". While Paypal stays the world's largest merchant supported virtual payment network. Merchants are widely supporting it. Bitcoin has the major advantage of the non-reversal of the payment. So, it is better than Paypal. RBF may alter this to some extent. But still even if RBF is adapted, wide support of bitcoin won't stop. However, I don't want RBF.

I agree. While RBF may offer some convenience, the ultimate cost of being able to double spend this easily (and especially with the scenario outlined in the article regarding non-chronological processing) not only compromises the security that Bitcoin was founded on, but introduces a host of new problems (i.e. network division/fragmentation).

[spiderbrain]

Could someone post a link to the documentation around how RBF is opt in and can't become default? The cash-like (non-reversable) nature of bitcoin seems essential to me, and zero confirmation works fine for retail if RBF can easily be excluded from the transaction.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

There is no problem with RBF. QR codes can be enhanced to indicate what type of txn is allowed, RBF or no. Wallets can be enhanced to check the QR and act accordingly informing the user. The exchange happens or it doesn't.

IF RBF is acceptable the payment now has an out for a small period of time. This supports someone making a mistake and fixing it quickly, a nice feature.

It can be unused otherwise.

Today 90% of my transactions are web based and I would use RBF on every one of these because you ALWAYS would like to review your txn AFTER you made it, I don't know anyone that doesn't.

Fear and FUD on this is insane.

My impression from trying to follow the technical details is that it isn't difficult to double-spend a 0-conf transaction even now, if you have the know-how. Opt-in RBF just sort of puts a process in place.

Isn't it?

[mudiko]

Bitcoin needs trust. No RBF will make stuff more reliable. Charge backs are not a issue with paypal, because it's centralized with laws which we should not expect from BTC. RBF is a huge issue with bitcoin and if we will keep having it. There will be services which will take our payments under laws to make things secure for both side. RBF makes Centralization in BTC higher. It is not what satoshi expected from BTC and not what makes BTC special and unique.

[matthewh3]

There are currently methods to pretty much be sure that a zero confirmation transaction will go through on the next block.  Wouldn't this RBF update break that.  Apart the helping to foster a free market on transaction fees I don't really see the benefits of this update.  And won't it break the core ethos of bitcoin only being a pure push system.  I've read this update is due to be pushed through at the next bitcoin core update release.   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

There are currently methods to pretty much be sure that a zero confirmation transaction will go through on the next block.  Wouldn't this RBF update break that.  Apart the helping to foster a free market on transaction fees I don't really see the benefits of this update.  And won't it break the core ethos of bitcoin only being a pure push system.  I've read this update is due to be pushed through at the next bitcoin core update release.   

Just a little.