Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring

2020-09-22 Thread Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev
Hi, I think the topic of how to improve transaction relay policy and fee bumping is an important one that needs to be worked on, so I'm glad this is a topic of discussion. However I am pretty skeptical of this consensus change proposal: The Sponsor Vector TXIDs must also be in the block the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Statechain coinswap: assigning blame for failure in a two-stage transfer protocol.

2020-09-22 Thread Tom Trevethan via bitcoin-dev
Hi ZmnSCPxj, > The SE can run in a virtual environment that monitors deletion events and records them. > Such a virtual environment could be set up by a rootkit that has been installed on the SE hardware. > Thus, even if the SE is honest, corruption of the hardware it is running on can allow

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring

2020-09-22 Thread Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
Hello AC, Yes that's a real issue. In the context of multi-party protocols, you may pre-signed transactions with the feerate of _today_ and then only going to be broadcast later with a feerate of _tomorrow_. In that case the pre-signed feerate may be so low that the transaction won't even

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Replacement for RBF and CPFP: Non-Destructive TXID Dependencies for Fee Sponsoring

2020-09-22 Thread ArmchairCryptologist via bitcoin-dev
Not sure if I'm missing something, but I'm curious if (how) this will work if the sponsored transaction's feerate is so low that it has been largely evicted from mempools due to fee pressure, and is too low to be widely accepted when re-broadcast? It seems to me that the following requirement