Bitcoin Core Developers Implicated for Imposing Fees on Override Transactions
Several Bitcoin Core developers have been charged with trying to push Bitcoin to accept fee replacement (RBF) transactions by default, according to Synonym CEO John Carvalho. Instead of letting users choose between RBF transactions and surface-level zero confirmation, their plan would alter Bitcoin’s underlying protocols (0conf).
The Strategies Used
According to Carvalho, the developers used strategies like: spreading false information and using intimidation techniques on the Bitcoin-Dev email list, changing the Bitcoin Core node code, and paying miners to support RBF.
The majority of merchants’ preferred 0conf transaction methods might be replaced by RBF transactions. Carvalho claims that Synonym is in favor of making 0conf transactions more resistant to double-spend attacks, and he accuses RBF-supporting developers of attempting to safeguard specialized designs with constrained applications.
By definition, 0conf transactions are not included in any blocks of the Bitcoin blockchain and are also known as “unconfirmed transactions” or “proposed transactions.”
Why Are RBF transactions Distinct From 0conf Transactions?
By substituting a low-cost transaction with a larger fee for an unconfirmed transaction, fee substitution can hasten the confirmation of a transaction. Only when a miner has not yet decided which low-cost transaction to include in a block can this kind of transaction take place. A miner is more likely to choose the transaction when the fees are higher.
RBF Transactions Are Not Perfect
Transactions using RBF have a problem. Senders have the option to change both the recipient address and the fee associated with an unconfirmed transaction. By sending the cash to a different address under their control after the merchant has delivered the customer’s order, this flaw enables senders of cryptocurrency payments to scam merchants.
Digital assets can be spent without having to wait for a transaction to start confirming after ten minutes thanks to zero-confirmation transactions. If a transaction looks to be valid at first glance, the sender can broadcast it and rely on the merchant to accept the payments. Because 0conf transactions can be completed as quickly as a customer swipes a debit card, merchants prefer them.
When he proposed a “Bitcoin Snack Machine“—a vending machine that could take transactions in 10 seconds or less with “adequate verification”—Satoshi Nakamoto, the person who created Bitcoin, appeared to have anticipated 0conf transactions in 2010.
Since that time, 0conf transactions have gained popularity among retailers thanks to payment processors like BitPay.
Senders may always overrule 0conf transactions before a miner adds them to a block, according to some members of the bitcoin community. A suggestion to introduce a Zero Confirmation Forfeit protocol that retailers may use to deter theft was one attempt to overcome problems with 0conf transactions. Transactions with Zero Confirmation Forfeit would have needed to be set up with funds that would be forfeited if the sender tried to double the funds in the original transaction.
Carvalho stated that it is best to leave the choice of whether to employ 0conf or RBF transactions to the surface level. In an ideal world, the final decision would be made by the end users rather than the Core developers. Developers of digital wallets, like as Synonym, may include options for RBF and/or 0conf transactions.
