📅 Original date posted:2023-08-01
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author argues that implementing a first seen safe rule would avoid negative impacts on merchants and users who accept unconfirmed transactions. However, the author questions the validity of the claim, as they could not find any evidence of actual merchants accepting unconfirmed payments.
📝 Original message:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 01:26:11PM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This would unnecessarily and extremely negatively impact merchants and
> users who choose to accept 0-conf while using mitigation tools like GAP600.
> This negative impact could be avoided by simply adding first seen safe rule
> - ie a trx can be replaced but needs to include the original outputs.
>
> At GAP600 we continue to see strong use of our service for BTC we have seen
> circa 350k unique trx hash per month (over the last 3 months) requested to
> our platform. Our clients include - Coinpayments, Coinspaid and Changelly.
I checked, and Coinpayments and Coinspaid are both merchant processors. I could
not find any example of actual merchants using their platform accepting
unconfirmed payments. I also could not find any documentation on their websites
indicating unconfirmed transaction acceptance.
As for Changelly, their website says right on the front that "With an average
transaction speed of 5–40 minutes, we ensure you can swiftly take advantage of
market opportunities." Obivously, 5 minutes is not an unconfirmed payment.
Additionally, I verified myself by doing test transactions with BIP125 disabled
and an adequate fee: unconfirmed payments are not accepted by Changelly. As
their exchange flow clearly says "Once BTC is confirmed in the blockchain,
we’ll start exchanging it to <coin>."
You need to provide an genuine example of an actual merchant who accepts
unconfirmed transactions as payment, and actually relies on first-seen
behavior.
> We have not seen any impact of full RBF on double spend rates for our trxs
Based on the above findings, this appears to be because you don't actually have
any clients who rely on unconfirmed payments.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/0d59f467/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-08-01 15:59:57
in reply to nevent1q…2mnv
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-08-01 15:59:57Event JSON
{
"id": "6c8552dd2d771894000773dd62a8db0589b94af19f638dc36bf6c5f1db61f0aa",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1690905597,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"697bcfa298f3a9d13b8e90fbe9dd354e837278976d35c19e881d424315b35661",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-08-01\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The author argues that implementing a first seen safe rule would avoid negative impacts on merchants and users who accept unconfirmed transactions. However, the author questions the validity of the claim, as they could not find any evidence of actual merchants accepting unconfirmed payments.\n📝 Original message:\nOn Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 01:26:11PM +0300, Daniel Lipshitz via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e This would unnecessarily and extremely negatively impact merchants and\n\u003e users who choose to accept 0-conf while using mitigation tools like GAP600.\n\u003e This negative impact could be avoided by simply adding first seen safe rule\n\u003e - ie a trx can be replaced but needs to include the original outputs.\n\u003e \n\u003e At GAP600 we continue to see strong use of our service for BTC we have seen\n\u003e circa 350k unique trx hash per month (over the last 3 months) requested to\n\u003e our platform. Our clients include - Coinpayments, Coinspaid and Changelly.\n\nI checked, and Coinpayments and Coinspaid are both merchant processors. I could\nnot find any example of actual merchants using their platform accepting\nunconfirmed payments. I also could not find any documentation on their websites\nindicating unconfirmed transaction acceptance.\n\nAs for Changelly, their website says right on the front that \"With an average\ntransaction speed of 5–40 minutes, we ensure you can swiftly take advantage of\nmarket opportunities.\" Obivously, 5 minutes is not an unconfirmed payment.\n\nAdditionally, I verified myself by doing test transactions with BIP125 disabled\nand an adequate fee: unconfirmed payments are not accepted by Changelly. As\ntheir exchange flow clearly says \"Once BTC is confirmed in the blockchain,\nwe’ll start exchanging it to \u003ccoin\u003e.\"\n\nYou need to provide an genuine example of an actual merchant who accepts\nunconfirmed transactions as payment, and actually relies on first-seen\nbehavior.\n\n\u003e We have not seen any impact of full RBF on double spend rates for our trxs\n\nBased on the above findings, this appears to be because you don't actually have\nany clients who rely on unconfirmed payments.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230801/0d59f467/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "c7a8a444e84c46c3dbfe239203d8e96c8bb59ad525de6de5e93c4084fe44d45ab5819a3a989aa2470b3ddbde2762dfd653d2cb91ce245963a27642970b3ed0c2"
}