tl;dr: we can solve Rule #3 transaction pinning attacks by simply replacing based on fee-rate, if the old transaction wasn't going to be mined in the next block or two, and the new transaction will be.
This _is_ incentive compatible, because it makes more sense to make money now with a high fee rate transaction than to favor a transaction of lower fee rate that may never even be mined.
New blog post: https://petertodd.org/2023/why-you-should-run-mempoolfullrbf
What is full-RBF? Why is it good for multiparty protocols like conjoin? Why is it good for wallets and miners? And why do a small minority hate it with a passion?
(we all gotta take a break from ordinal drama you know)
So, why *I* am unhappy about the Ordinals project: it confirms in people's mind, a terrible cognitive error.
If there's one thing I always have tried to get across to people in the various talks, podcasts whatever I've given over the years it's this: satoshis *do not exist*. There is no serial number attached to them; they do not exist in code. It's like asking 'where are the inches on this 15 inch stick'. Utxos exist, sats (or bitcoins), don't. Abstract? Yes, but in a sense, critical.(4/n).
"Combat GoPro - Wiping Out Russian Spetsnaz Team in CQB"
Fighting 1m from the enemy.
Luxor mined a block with four full-rbf replacements at once: https://web.archive.org/web/20221224215544/https://fullrbf.mempool.observer/
Two from my OTS calendars (including a $165 fee). And two others that I didn't create.
"My dude slowed down gravity in mid air 🤯"
Dance battle or physics homework problem?
Interesting! Foundry USA mined a full-rbf double-spend, with a few minutes between tx #1 and tx #2: https://web.archive.org/web/20221221022035/https://fullrbf.mempool.observer/
My best guess is this has something to do with unconfirmed inputs. My stock v24.0 node saw both tx #1 and tx #2 at the same time initially, but rejected the latter for spending an unconfirmed input. Then a few minutes later, it accepted tx #2 once the input confirmed.
At least in Malwarebytes, the disclaimer against Enigma's software was softened by describing it as a "potentially unwanted program" or PUP. Here though, Twitter straight up calls Mastodon links malware.
Sounds like a false statement of fact...
Also wondering if the Lanham Act / false advertising claims have a better chance here too.
So... this seems like a good time to start experimenting with Mastodon.
I'm very skeptical about the chances of getting enough network effect to bootstrap a new social media site in general, and even more for distributed/decentralized/non-commercial ones.
Still, recent events on Twitter make me believe there is a chance, and I'd like to help make that happen.
I have two rented VPS servers running full-rbf nodes that were previously in Mykolaiv, Ukraine, quite close to the front lines in Kherson.
The hosting company finally gave up and moved their whole operation to a Kyiv data center this weekend. Russia has been trying to destroy the entire Ukrainian power grid for two months now; wouldn't be surprised if that hosting company can't get enough diesel fuel in Mykolaiv due to demand by other critical services.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!