2183 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 20 May 2023
Overly dramatic.
Decentralization isn't gone. This feature just shifts economic benefit from the miner to the transaction creator. Miners who do this are automatically sacrificing rewards they could have otherwise earned by including a higher paying transaction.
They can't sustainably do this, without the transaction creators paying them in some other way.
The idea has also been around for probably 7 or 8 years. Notice that it hasn't caught on, nor scaled.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @m00ninite 20 May 2023
To me, this just seems like another avenue to fund what is already a great open source project. If they want a few sats from people that can't be bothered to use a real bitcoin wallet that supports RBF (basically all of them that aren't shitcoin wallets), seems fine by me.
reply
327 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 20 May 2023
ELI5 what's wrong with this? It was inevitable miners were going to find other ways to maximize their value. Atleast Bitcoin doesn't have any MEV-sandwich business going on. This seems like a replacement for RBF for wallets that don't have RBF
reply
223 sats \ 0 replies \ @02d769cb73 20 May 2023
they still had to pay a higher fee than the 1 sat per vbyte they initially broadcast, so i don't get what the point of it is - the miners aren't doing you a favour, you have to pay them to do this, by whatever means.
1 sat tx getting confirmed in a high fee congestion period would stick out like a sore thumb too, so presumably they could be discounted/ignored by fee estimators ?
it's RBF with extra steps - just seems silly.
reply
213 sats \ 0 replies \ @0x7dc 20 May 2023
What does that mean?
In my mind the pools doing some calculations to figure out the problem and get reward.
How is this possible without bump the fee?
This is another huge news after Ledger suicide
reply
71 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 20 May 2023
Is there an obvious solution?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 21 May 2023
This sure seems like an overreaction to me. But, maybe I don't get it.
What it looks like:
This feature allows anyone to pay miners out of band using bitcoin to include a transaction in the next block. The only thing that is different about this to me is that they offer an interface for doing this out of band vs. using the protocol.
What is the harm? That this happens out of band? Fee bumping is something I've been experimenting with this last week. In principle this seems to me to be no different in principle. Honestly, this almost feels like a joke. A prank. I mean, you can do this with RBF now without Mempool.space
Most importantly, I don't see how this could ever be prevented.
What am I missing?
reply
8 sats \ 0 replies \ @pepe78 20 May 2023
me totally agree
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @holesinthefoam 21 May 2023
Oh just stop it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @christian_gaugele 20 May 2023
Top
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @btcthinker 20 May 2023
It is not news that there are cooperative miners helping to process transactions. Miners always get a reasonable fee to help out. For those who do not use RBF transaction, it is also a good choice to use Lightning Network to pay miners. Better than broadcasting another transaction. It's just that the video doesn't reveal what method is used.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @riberet19 20 May 2023
and in the end of the video they laugh, splendid.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fish 20 May 2023
a disaster...the sounds of laughter in the video is horrible....
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @christian_gaugele 20 May 2023 freebie
Sexy
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @vipulyadav2011 20 May 2023 freebie
Totally best solution