Bitcoin: Settlement Layer or Payment Network?

[Carlton Banks]

You said "good luck receiving transactions before their (sic) confirmed".

yep. maybe time you actually spend some bitcoin for once and realise that the transactions get relayed

so receiving == relaying somehow? No need to change the subject Franky, it was interesting watching you stammer your way through your version of Bitcoin transactions Basics. The way it works in your head anyway, lol

Try to explain how RBF allow people to cancel transactions, I would quite enjoy laughing at you again tbh

[franky1]

so receiving == relaying somehow? No need to change the subject Franky, it was interesting watching you stammer your way through your version of Bitcoin transactions Basics. The way it works in your head anyway, lol

send out= push tx
receive = receive

to receive AND then send out = relay..

you cannot relay a transaction without receiving it. otherwise...
.. if you havnt received it, then you must be the one making a new tx, which means you are pushing the tx..

[Carlton Banks]

shut up Franky, you're only making it worse. receiving = receiving ROFL

[franky1]

shut up Franky, you're only making it worse. receiving = receiving ROFL

lol so your saying that now receiving doesnt equal receiving.. now your the one breaking the laws of physics.

[Carlton Banks]

It was more the way you said it to divert away from your ramblings about RBF causing one to receive a transaction before it had been confirmed, and that was what was so amusing about it. but hey, that was what we were talking about... you are trying to divert away from the whole point! Well played, Franky. Good job.

[Carlton Banks]

Tell us again, Franky, about how RBF allows arbitrary user cancellation of transactions, I liked that one a great deal also. You have a gift for actual comedy, that's why I like you lol. Please continue to keep us entertained with your stories and pictures

[franky1]

Tell us again, Franky, about how RBF allows arbitrary user cancellation of transactions, I liked that one a great deal also. You have a gift for actual comedy, that's why I like you lol. Please continue to keep us entertained with your stories and pictures

RBF allows people to send a second transaction with altered payment amounts to replace a previous transaction while it waits in the mempool.

thus if i had 3btc and paid you 2btc. and returned 1btc to myself.you would instantly be giddy with excitement thinking that you are going to get 2btc.

but before its confirmed i send another transaction using the same input but this time the output amounts are 0 to you, and 2.99btc to myself. making the fee 0.01 which will make pools drop the first tx in preference to the second one being added to the next block

so although you first seen a transaction paying you 2btc, and you went dancing around ur house the way only carlton banks does.. you do not realise that the pools have dropped that transaction and about to add the transaction paying me 2.99btc..

leaving you crying like a school girl the only way carlton does

[Carlton Banks]

And this cancels/revokes the transaction how? According to your explanation, the transaction goes through no matter what. There is no option to nullify the transaction.


Explain to us also how accepting zero-confirmations was ever a good idea? Can you explain how your scenario could happen today without the use of RBF? Because the same danger exists with or without the use of RBF. For instance, there is nothing to stop a miner from simply preferring the first seen transaction over the fee replacement anyway (I seem to remember that some mechanism like that exists, perhaps you'll look it up for us, seeing as you're so interested in this topic, Franky?)


Are you just about done bashing Bitcoin yet Franky? What's your big idea to tackle Bitcoin's growth again, "2MB" wasn't it? Tell us another story about 2MB, I liked those ones

[franky1]

to the point about stuff like malleability AND RBF

And this cancels/revokes the transaction how? According to your explanation, the transaction goes through no matter what. There is no option to nullify the transaction.

can you read.. i said the opposite.. here ill quote you.

which will make pools drop the first tx in preference to the second one being added to the next block

goodluck with your life

Explain to us also how accepting zero-confirmations was ever a good idea? Can you explain how your scenario could happen today without the use of RBF? Because the same danger exists with or without the use of RBF. For instance, there is nothing to stop a miner from simply preferring the first seen transaction over the fee replacement anyway (I seem to remember that some mechanism like that exists, perhaps you'll look it up for us, seeing as you're so interested in this topic, Franky?)

 i have said all along that no one should be accepting zero confirms and thus bitcoin should only be treated as a settlement layer because it should not be trusted as a payment layer for zero-confirms.

but even though they presume to fix malleability, RBF allows the same risk of messing with transactions by the USER. so the situation has not gotten better.
yes pools (separate scenario compared to user abuse) can also do strange things. but there is more chance of user abuse then pool abuse. and so i concentrated on how users can abuse transactions where funds are presumed to be destined to go to retailers that would stupidly trust zero confirms, due to the stupid mindset of blockstreamers telling users that when malleability is sorted its safe to trust zero confirms.

[Carlton Banks]

So.......... 2MB again, yeah? That was pretty predictable (aka boring)



Again Franky, stop digging. You tried to use imprecise language to suggest that RBF breaks various Bitcoin covenants, but now you're essentially agreeing that the issue is no different after RBF than it was before (and is somehow still a problem?). Stop wasting everyone's time

[franky1]

So.......... 2MB again, yeah? That was pretty predictable (aka boring)



Again Franky, stop digging. You tried to use imprecise language to suggest that RBF breaks various Bitcoin covenants, but now you're essentially agreeing that the issue is no different after RBF than it was before. Stop wasting everyone's time

your the one that started the crap that malleability fix would be beneficial. i was the one that said that due to RBF (a different feature) people can still mess with transactions. seriously. your even forgetting what side of the debate you sit on

in short. unless its made so that people can trust zero-confirms(not gonna happen anytime soon). then bitcoin should not be treated as a payment layer. and just a settlement layer

[Carlton Banks]

Square this circle:

in short. unless its made so that people can trust zero-confirms(not gonna happen anytime soon)

i have said all along that no one should be accepting zero confirms

So, even if you could make up your mind about whether 0-conf should be trusted or not (over the space of only 2 posts, no less), why should anyone listen to you anyway? The person who exhibits precisely opposite positions on the same issue over the course of about 5 minutes? Maybe we should wait another 5 minutes, we'll get access to your latest flip-flopped wisdom

[franky1]

Square this circle:

in short. unless its made so that people can trust zero-confirms(not gonna happen anytime soon)

i have said all along that no one should be accepting zero confirms

So, even if you could make up your mind about whether 0-conf should be trusted or not (over the space of only 2 posts, no less), why should anyone listen to you anyway? The person who exhibits precisely opposite positions on the same issue over the course of about 5 minutes? Maybe we should wait another 5 minutes, we'll get access to your latest flip-flopped wisdom

i hear whistling in the wind, but nothing of substance.

[Carlton Banks]

So what are you trying to say now, that the Bitcoin devs should have made 0-confs trustable years ago?



It's strange Franky, you've always got so much to say when people aren't pointing out the holes in your steaming turds of discourse. Why so quiet, suddenly?

[RealBitcoin]

Well even Andreas Antonopoulos is saying that bitcoin is not transferred, instead it's settled.

So it looks like the settlement layer is the real emphasis of bitcoin.

[franky1]

Well even Andreas Antonopoulos is saying that bitcoin is not transferred, instead it's settled.

So it looks like the settlement layer is the real emphasis of bitcoin.

yep no one should trust the unconfirmed transaction, which some compare to a payment authorization(not settled). which may seem instant to process but cannot guarantee the end recipient will get it. so everyone should be treating bitcoin as, funds havnt moved until they are confirmed.

so although bitcoin has the 'naive utility' of settlement and payment, no one should trust the payment side(due to malle, RBF, pool preferences) and only trust the settlement side(confirmed in blocks), which is what bitcoin's main invention is all about essentially

[RealBitcoin]

yep no one should trust the unconfirmed transaction, which some compare to a payment authorization(not settled). which may seem instant to process but cannot guarantee the end recipient will get it. so everyone should be treating bitcoin as, funds havnt moved until they are confirmed.

so although bitcoin has the 'naive utility' of settlement and payment, no one should trust the payment side(due to malle, RBF, pool preferences) and only trust the settlement side(confirmed in blocks), which is what bitcoin's main invention is all about essentially

It will probably be fixed soon.

There are already initiatives that will make unconfirmed tx's more secure. Just wait it out.

[hv_]

if someone sells 10million dollars worth of bitcoin the market will nose dive very hard, this should give you a clue as to how far off we are of being a Settlement Layer.

baby steps, bitcoin NEEDS to gain a much wider user base before it can even attempt being a Settlement Layer.

This is over year old, but still very on & correct.

Brave Adam, miss u posting the truth!