pull down to refresh

In fact it is. But is much easier and cost less to do a RBF (revert) on it than 6 confirmations.
I'm a bit lost. Isn't RBF just for transactions waiting to be confirmed (mempool)? It doesn't work after the transaction is in a block, right?
If the RBF have a higher fee and a miner willing to take, it will replace the previous one.
reply
I'm not 'concerned' about the mempool stage, but rather the post-confirmation period (1 confirmation). Just to be clear, 2 confirmations indicate the existence of one block subsequent to the block containing the transaction.
reply
reply
It's not about unconfirmed transactions. RBF is only for unconfirmed transactions waiting in the mempool.
reply
Yes you can, here is an example https://medium.com/@overtorment/bitcoin-replace-by-fee-guide-e10032f9a93f
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Skipper 9h
interesting 👀
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 8h
There is nothing of interest here, just @DarthCoin not being able to read.
He probably thinks double-spend always means a confirmed transaction was reverted but the article explicitly mentions that this is about manual RBF which changes the output on unconfirmed transactions.
In case of manual RBF we can specify totally different destination addresses, which can be considered a doublespend.
This is only a doublespend if the receiver accepted a tx with 0 confirmations.
reply
Try it yourself. Included in a block it doesn't really means is "confirmed".
My main question it's not about unconfirmed transactions. RBF is only for unconfirmed transactions waiting in the mempool. I'm talking about mined transactions.
reply
You can do RBF on a confirmed tx but not with 6 confirmations.
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 8h
from your link:
Replace-By-Fee (RBF) is a node policy that allows an unconfirmed transaction in a mempool to be replaced with a different transaction that spends at least one of the same inputs and which pays a higher transaction fee.
reply
We got 1 confirmation
unconfirmed = not yet included in 6 blocks confirmed = included in 6 blocks
reply