Hi Dave, > One way to address this risk is by turning it into a certainty. If the price of BTC increases between when the invoice is generated and when a transaction is included in a block, give the customer a future purchase credit equal in value to the difference between the price they paid and the value of the purchase at confirmation time. Now there's no benefit to the customer from canceling their transaction.
There are several methods to approach this issue, one of which is by using multiple exchanges from different countries as there are always possibilities for arbitrage. Example: The user purchases a gift card on Bitrefill for 0.01 BTC, and then Bitrefill cash it out at one of the three exchanges where the price of bitcoin is 19000, 19100, or 19500. However, price used for gift card payment was average of all 3. This should never be solved at protocol level as speculation of price is irrelevant when making RBF policy default in bitcoin core. There are different types of businesses that accept bitcoin payments and its good for bitcoin. However, everyone has their own way to deal with the issues. Example: In a website for booking flights, you may cancel a user's ticket if they couldn't make a payment within a certain amount of time and confirmations. I'm not sure how gift cards operate, but they are used for carding, fraud etc. frequently. Its important to give priority to bitcoin projects that could improve demand for block space even if opening and closing channels. I would [quote][0] something from a pull request by Michael Folkson although I do not agree with everything he writes: "I don't believe in added code (complexity) for issues that can be resolved in alternative repos and through communication with the ecosystem." Things that could help improve business for companies that accept bitcoin payments could be done in other ways. Zero conf is old school but we can try new ways and do partnerships with more organizations (outside North America and Europe). I work for an exchange as developer although CTO won't write an email and CEO don't want to spam the mailing list with non technical things. I request on their behalf that we consider all businesses and some are not even aware of fullRBF. Example: Lolli or Gosats TL;DR Full RBF should be tried and if default is an issue, devs should convince some nodes and miners or agree on one of the pull requests. I prefer [AJ's pull request][1] because it gives time for review and testing. It is important to test as many websites, apps, projects etc. as possible before making something default and also consider the percent of usage. [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26323#issuecomment-1280742475 [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26323 /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, October 24th, 2022 at 12:50 AM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 2022-10-19 04:29, Sergej Kotliar via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > The biggest risk > > in accepting bitcoin payments is in fact not zeroconf risk (it's > > actually quite easily managed), it's FX risk as the merchant must > > commit to a certain BTCUSD rate ahead of time for a purchase. Over > > time some transactions lose money to FX and others earn money - that > > evens out in the end. But if there is an easily accessible in the > > wallet feature to "cancel transaction" that means it will eventually > > get systematically abused. > > > One way to address this risk is by turning it into a certainty. If the > price of BTC increases between when the invoice is generated and when a > transaction is included in a block, give the customer a future purchase > credit equal in value to the difference between the price they paid and > the value of the purchase at confirmation time. Now there's no benefit > to the customer from canceling their transaction. > > Of course, this means that the merchant will always either break even or > lose money on the exchange rate part of the transaction and will need to > raise their prices accordingly. I can see how that would be unappealing > to implement, but it seems better to me to address the incentive > incompatibility you've raised rather than hope no large miners ever > start performing full RBF. Plus, maybe the future credit feature is > something customers would like: I know I've been sad several times when > the exchange rate changed significantly while I was waiting for one of > my transactions to confirm. > > The above mitigation is also compatible with LN payments. For example, > a merchant today might issue an LN invoice that expires in 10 minutes. > The customer can wait for most of that time to elapse to see how the > exchange rate changes before deciding to pay, obtaining the same > American call option. If they are instead offered a future purchase > credit for any gains, the customer doesn't suffer any opportunity cost > by paying immediately. (With LN, it might be possible to have a better > UX for this by either refunding any excess or (if using something like > Original AMP or PTLCs) not claiming any parts of the payment which are > in excess.) > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
