Quote from: pooya87 on December 17, 2022, 09:46:13 AM

Quote from: S_Speche on December 16, 2022, 09:45:32 PM

Consensus was broken when Core devs decided to go against Bitcoin´s White Paper: For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend.

Unconfirmed transactions have never been safe ever. With or without RBF this fact is not changing and what you insist on calling "attack" is not a thing.

Quote

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

Options that have nothing to do with the consensus rules do not need to reach any kind of consensus.

Quote

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the truly secure, high value layer.

Nonsense.

Quote

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.
Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable,

I agree with this part. Specifically since we have CPFP option.

Quote

any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

Complete nonsense.
Sender is in control of their keys so nobody can censor or seize their funds. The receiver also is not in the possession of the unconfirmed transaction so there is nothing there to censor or seize either. After the confirmation there is still no way to censor or seize the coins that are in their possession since they would control the key.

Quote

Because of how Bitcoin's cryptography works, You'll not find substantial attack worthy unspent UTXO. This is because whales know that any pvt key gets easier to extract through brute force if you already use it to sign a transaction.

Complete nonsense.
There is no way to "brute force" any private key by having the signature, one signature or a million doesn't change that.

Quote

Any transaction awaiting in the mempool is vulnerable due to this same reason. This is why the first seen rule was included on Bitcoin's white paper.

Complete nonsense. You either didn't read bitcoin's white paper or misunderstood it all, don't just read point #2, continue reading #3 and #4. That is how bitcoin works (confirmed transactions in blocks protected by Poof of Work) not by unconfirmed txs in the mempool based on which one was seen first, in fact this last part is the flaw that Satoshi is pointing out in other systems that bitcoin solves with PoW.

Quote

If a state agent is able to extract a PVT key from a transacción on the mempool in less than 10 minutes on 2022, or in X years from now is not an argument. Full-RBF is opening the back door towards censorship and seizure of Bitcoin's transactions.

If that becomes a possibility, the same imaginary "state agent" would also mine the block containing the double spent transaction without needing Full-RBF Cheesy

https://sofster.com/