pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @xz 16 Feb \ parent \ on: Over 70% of hash power has enabled Full-RBF; Bitcoin Core has not bitcoin
Maybe Chivo ATM is a good indicator, it's not critical to change on next major release?
Point is, Chivo ATM's give you money without a confirmation based on trust and their AML/KYC. They're accepting transactions with the BIP-125 RBF flag enabled, which means 100% of miners will replace them if double-spent. Full-RBF isn't relevant at all in that case. So Chivo ATM's are not a reason not to enable full-RBF by default.
reply
Oh I see. Chivo ATM allows withdrawing and converting to and from Peso at current rates, and is being converted with full-RBF enabled before confirmations.
In that case, it's out-of-band mining with ability to accelerate.
I saw somebody make the point that miners need to align to node runners, not the other way around. That seemed to ring true.
reply
Actually Chivo ATMs are allowing BTC to be converted to dollars; El Salvador uses the US dollar and BTC as their two official currencies.
I saw somebody make the point that miners need to align to node runners, not the other way around.
That argument is nonsense. People are fully able to run their own nodes, with their own policies. Full-RBF is in fact an example of that: I have a full-RBF peering fork of Bitcoin Core that ensures full-RBF replacements get to miners who are interested in mining them.
reply
I see, Thanks again for breaking down some of these arguments.
Obviously I'm not a Core developer, so I just wanted to know what's going on as I can only look at it from my own view and usage and wonder if I missed something.
Now I feel like this whole debate in nonsensical.
if I opened Bitcoin Core QT and on IBD a pop up asked:
"do you want mempoolfullrbf=0, or mempoolfullrbf=1"
This would be the only way to stop hurting sensitivities. Anyone who runs CLI is going to know how to change defaults anyway.
reply