related posts
62 sats \ 5 replies \ @petertodd OP 16 Feb
What Full-RBF is and why you should enable it on your node
reply
2 sats \ 2 replies \ @lada 16 Feb
Okay thanks, that is one side of the argument.
Are there any articles from the other side of the argument?
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd OP 16 Feb
There have been some arguments against in the pull-req I linked to in this submission. I'd suggest you read those comments.
Note that at the moment, all arguments against full-RBF on the basis of protecting unconfirmed transactions are invalid: with >70% of hash power mining full-RBF, it's technically trivial to replace any transaction by simply double-spending it with a higher fee.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 16 Feb
Good point.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @brandonsbytes 16 Feb
deleted by author
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd OP 16 Feb freebie
Arguments against full-RBF are here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @bitentrepreneur 16 Feb
probs a good idea, pools and block explorers keep mempools with no upper limits soooo
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 16 Feb
I don't see a problem with RBF now but it seems like there could be potential issues with covenants or other future OPcodes. Doubtful they would be insurmountable though.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @oliverweiss 16 Feb
The situation in December was crazy, some of my transactions were stuck in the mempool for a couple of weeks (yeah, I am greedy and don’t want to pay high fees), neither cancellation nor fee bumping was possible.
reply
22 sats \ 3 replies \ @kristapsk 16 Feb
Fee bumping is almost always possible using CPFP.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @025738dda8 16 Feb
However, CPFP leads to involving other unrelated utxo(s) which can mean an unwanted/unexpected deanonymization. With RBF, you can just use the already exposed change output for paying higher fee.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @kristapsk 16 Feb
Devil is in details, but more or less RBF means similar privacy loss as 1 input, 1 output CPFP. Basically you give more hints to the world in a different ways which output was for recipient and which was change.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @025738dda8 16 Feb
True. It depends on the particular case. That's why I don't say one or the other. Both mechanisms are useful in specific scenarios.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @xz 16 Feb freebie
I used to have your nodes listed in my .conf before I enabled it. Seems to make sense to me. Reading over the thread, someone posted
Am I right in understanding the only objection is 0conf transactions rely on this not-being enabled? But this would not be a problem anyway because the option to opt out is always there.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Eobard 16 Feb
deleted by author
reply