3 ms·
>notable possible downsides It's opt in, anyone that wants to accept zero conf can just insist that all transactions don't opt in. >a long standing problem wi
by ikeboy 11y ago
>notable possible downsides
It's opt in, anyone that wants to accept zero conf can just insist that all transactions don't opt in.
>a long standing problem with the simple solution
Hard forking bitcoin is not simple. It's never been done before on purpose, and many people are extremely hesitant to mess around with a billion dollar system.
Why is it hypocritical? He complains that some transactions took too long to go through. With RBF, those transactions could simply be resent with a higher fee. But if you're against RBF, then you need the original transaction to go through, and you'll have to wait if it had a low fee.
Basically, the problem is caused by his own opposition to RBF, as far as I see.
(Disclaimer: I've been spending less time around the bitcoin community recently, so my information might be out of date. The patch that was committed is definitely opt-in, but I can't guarantee all the mechanics work how I'm describing them.)
- MBCook 11y agoOk, so it's hypocritical on the 'transactions take too long' issue. Thanks for explaining.
- ikeboy 11y agoI just saw https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0xvpf https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoi... and https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3urm8o/optin_rbf_is_misunderstood_ask_questions_about_it/cxh9eg9 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3urm8o/optin_rbf_i... I think this paints Hearn's attack in a significantly worse light as I had previously thought.