Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Z5x6E-0001IM-An for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:16:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
	designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.91.229.3;
	envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
	helo=plane.gmane.org; 
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5x6D-00047l-4y
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:16:54 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Z5x65-00045s-Hu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:16:45 +0200
Received: from 2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it ([2.230.161.158])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:16:45 +0200
Received: from lawrence by 2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it with local
	(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:16:45 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress.it>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20150619T155400-734@post.gmane.org>
References: <20150619103959.GA32315@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CABHVRKR7bXfDX0_frAv_Ph4Saz3SXwXeZae1DEokorvekPeinw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-wgHAdPnW5omvcP6OfYbCAh3op+mAYtuzwk188AOZr2QA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 2.230.161.158 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11;
	Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
	Chrome/43.0.2357.81 Safari/537.36)
X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1Z5x6D-00047l-4y
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:16:54 -0000

Chun Wang <1240902 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks.

FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF.

We think Full RBF is better for a number of reasons:

-user experience
-efficiency
-cost
-code complexity

We think FSS RBF is  great progress but ultimately less efficient and more 
complicated to keep alive something that never worked properly.

And why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the 
option paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward.

A lot of users don't have multiple UTXO handy.

Full RBF is the best, second FSS RBF and we'd be looking into supporting 
them both separately so that miners and users can pick whichever they 
prefer.

If users only had one UTXO it makes sense to use Full RBF since there are no 
other options.

Disclosure: GreenAddress always believed zero conf transactions are not 
secure and that miners have the incentive to run FBF; this bias doesn't make 
the above less true