{"id":14279,"date":"2022-11-04T16:22:38","date_gmt":"2022-11-04T16:22:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-cores-version-24-0-full-rbf-proposal-sparks-controversy-synonym-ceo-calls-pet-agenda-an-attack-technology-bitcoin-news\/"},"modified":"2022-11-04T16:22:38","modified_gmt":"2022-11-04T16:22:38","slug":"bitcoin-cores-version-24-0-full-rbf-proposal-sparks-controversy-synonym-ceo-calls-pet-agenda-an-attack-technology-bitcoin-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crowdfundjunction.com\/blog\/bitcoin-cores-version-24-0-full-rbf-proposal-sparks-controversy-synonym-ceo-calls-pet-agenda-an-attack-technology-bitcoin-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Core\u2019s Version 24.0 Full-RBF Proposal Sparks Controversy, Synonym CEO Calls \u2018Pet Agenda\u2019 an \u2018Attack\u2019 \u2013 Technology Bitcoin News"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Originally posted on : Bitcoin News )<\/b>
\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/header>\n
\n<\/div>\n

During the last few weeks, a number of individuals have been discussing the upcoming release of Bitcoin Core version 24.0 and how the codebase will include full-replace-by-fee (RBF) logic. The discussion has become controversial as a few Lightning Network and zero confirmation advocates have expressed a distaste for the full-RBF idea. The CEO of Synonym, John Carvalho, has been a vocal critic of the proposal on Twitter and on Nov. 3, Carvalho remarked that a subset of Core developers \u201care currently trying to attack Bitcoin by forcing a pet agenda to make all transactions RBF by default.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bitcoin Core Version 24.0 to Provide Full-RBF Logic, Zero-Confirmation and Lightning Network Advocates Speak out Against the Proposal<\/h2>\n

Ever since replace-by-fee (RBF) was introduced<\/a> in 2014 by software developer Peter Todd, the topic has been a sensitive subject. Essentially, RBF allows bitcoin users to leverage the feature in order to replace an unconfirmed transaction with an alternative transaction with an increased fee. However, when a transaction is included in a block, it cannot be superseded by RBF at that point. The scheme only works with zero-confirmation (0-conf) transactions (txns). Zero-confirmation transactions are transfers that can be accepted by a merchant or service via a network broadcast, well before a miner confirms the transaction in a block.<\/p>\n

According to various reports<\/a>, Bitcoin Core version 24.0 will provide full-RBF logic and the idea has fueled more controversy. \u201cUntil now, Bitcoin Core nodes applied the \u2018first seen\u2019 rule, which meant that conflicting transactions wouldn\u2019t be accepted in the node\u2019s memory pool (mempool) and forwarded to peers,\u201d a summary<\/a> described by Bitcoin Magazine details. \u201cWith this upcoming release, users can choose to make their nodes accept and forward conflicting transactions if they include a higher fee than (the) earlier transaction(s) they conflict with.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, Bitcoin Magazine\u2019s summary does not include the controversial arguments against full-RBF logic. A number of critics have said that transaction replacement harms the network, and that it helps promote<\/a> double-spend attacks<\/a>. The double spend attack<\/a> assertion has been argued since RBF was first introduced into Bitcoin Core version 0.12. In another summary of Bitcoin Core version 24.0, a Medium post<\/a> published on Oct. 29, the author mentions some of the detractors and arguments against the full-RBF scheme. The author quotes the founder of the Lightning Network (LN) wallet Muun, Dario Sneidermanis.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuring the last few days, we have been investigating the latest Bitcoin Core release candidate, and we found some worrying facts about the deployment of opt-in full-RBF,\u201d Sneidermanis explained. The Muun CEO further added that \u201czero-conf apps (like Muun) must now instantly disable zero-conf features.\u201d Sneidermanis\u2019 critique of the proposed change continued:<\/p>\n

\n

We at Muun will have to turn off outbound Lightning payments for more than 100,000 users, which is currently a good portion of all non-fiduciary Lightning payments.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Synonym CEO John Carvalho Says RBF Makes \u2018Spending Bitcoin More Dangerous for Consumers and Businesses\u2019<\/h2>\n

The Medium post describing Bitcoin Core version 24.0 also mentions people who disagree with the Muun CEO\u2019s analysis. For instance, Bitcoin Core developer David Harding says the upgrade \u201cdoes not change transaction substitutability in any significant way.\u201d The blog post details that \u201cPieter Wuile makes a similar argument,\u201d and software Developer Luke Dashjr has already implemented full-RBF logic in his software Bitcoin Knots codebase. A few days after the Medium post<\/a> was published, the CEO of Synonym, John Carvalho<\/a>, tweeted about the discussion and he included some accusations.<\/p>\n

\u201cA subset of Core devs are currently trying to attack Bitcoin by forcing a pet agenda to make all transactions RBF by default,\u201d Carvalho wrote<\/a> on Nov. 3, 2022. \u201cThis attack includes bitcoin-dev mailing list lies and lobbying, code changes in Core node, and bribery attempts to miners. Merchants rely on 0-conf txns as a way to meet consumer needs in commerce. RBF makes the mempool less reliable and spending bitcoin more dangerous for consumers and businesses,\u201d Carvalho added<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

The more users there are spending BTC<\/a>, the more valuable it is.<\/p>\n

\u2014 John Carvalho (@BitcoinErrorLog) November 4, 2022<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Carvalho\u2019s opinion was met with controversy and one user tweeted<\/a> that \u201crelying on 0-conf transactions doesn\u2019t seem very smart when the majority of onchain transactions are only going to be very large value transactions in the future.\u201d Carvalho responded<\/a> and insisted that \u201cit is not your decision what amount of risk is acceptable to someone else.\u201d Another person told<\/a> Carvalho that full-RBF \u201cseems [like a] good incentive for LN and less L1 bloating. Intermediate time [obvious] pain for merchants. But non-RBF is never going to stay profitable for most merchants.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Synonym CEO replied and stressed<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

That is a claim and prediction that conflicts with observable reality.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Strong Majority of No Votes Shoot Down Carvalho\u2019s Argument, Peter Todd Says Miners Have Contacted Him Asking for Full-RBF<\/h2>\n

The same day, Carvalho asked<\/a> people to prove that \u201cDouble spending was always easy and possible.\u201d \u201cProve it,\u201d the Synonym CEO remarked. \u201c[Double spend] at [Bitrefill], they literally want test examples.\u201d The following day, Carvalho provided<\/a> his RBF \u201cargument, and solution, simplified, without sensation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Bitcoin<\/p>\n

Carvalho\u2019s argument<\/a> published to Github was shot down by a large number of NACKs (Vote for No) and one person said<\/a>: \u201cAs someone who has had transactions get stuck before, being able to RBF easily is the best experience for users.\u201d Another person detailed that he believes 0-conf transactions are not safe and stated<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

[NACK] zero-conf isn\u2019t a safe, making it a tiny bit harder to RBF is delusional.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Software developer Peter Todd<\/a> has been arguing against Carvalho\u2019s argument on Github as well and explained that he was contacted by bitcoin miners. \u201cI personally have been recently contacted by miners asking how they can turn [full RBF] on. Obviously, pointing them to a config option is simplest for them,\u201d Todd told<\/a> Carvalho. Furthermore, Todd stressed that there\u2019s demand for the full RBF feature. \u201cThere\u2019s obviously demand for this option,\u201d Todd said<\/a>. \u201cSeems that the motivation to remove it comes from attempting to make zero conf safer,\u201d the software developer added.<\/p>\n

The Github user operating the handle \u201cGreenaddress<\/a>\u201d wrote: \u201cNACK. I planned to use this feature both personally as well as on production for example on esplora\/blockstream.info and Green wallet.\u201d Greenaddress further criticized the replace-by-fee flag mechanism.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs others have said we can also compile Bitcoin core but it would be an inconvenience and in general I think the [RBF] flag provides a false sense of security especially as we seen recently even non-standard transactions can find their [way] to miners. Mostly agree with afilini\/ptodd\/dbrozzoni\u2019s points,\u201d Greenaddress concluded<\/a>. One individual, however, questioned the purpose behind Greenaddress, saying that it planned to \u201cuse this feature both personally as well as on production.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cFor what purpose?\u201d the individual <\/span>asked<\/span><\/a> Greenaddress on Github. \u201cI haven\u2019t seen an answer to \u2018Does [full-RBF] offer any benefits other than breaking [zero-conf] business practices? If so, what are they?\u2019 Yet; does the above imply you have one?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nTags in this story
\n<\/h6>\n
0-Conf<\/a>, Bitcoin Core developer<\/a>, Bitcoin Knots<\/a>, controversy<\/a>, David Harding<\/a>, double spend<\/a>, double spend attacks<\/a>, full-RBF<\/a>, full-RBF logic<\/a>, greenaddress<\/a>, John Carvalho<\/a>, lightning network<\/a>, ln<\/a>, Luke Dashjr<\/a>, nodes<\/a>, onchain transactions<\/a>, Peter Todd<\/a>, RBF<\/a>, RBF transactions<\/a>, Replace by Fee<\/a>, Synonym CEO<\/a>, technology<\/a>, Zero-Confirmation transactions<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What do you think about the controversy surrounding the full RBF feature that developers have proposed to add to Bitcoin Core\u2019s codebase? What do you think about Sneidermanis\u2019 and Carvalho\u2019s arguments against full RBF logic? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nJamie Redman <\/h6>\n

\nJamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Image Credits<\/b>: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Disclaimer<\/strong>: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com<\/a> does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n