pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @oliverweiss 16 Feb \ on: Over 70% of hash power has enabled Full-RBF; Bitcoin Core has not bitcoin
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.
write
preview
22 sats \ 3 replies \ @kristapsk 16 Feb
neither cancellation nor fee bumping was possible
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