MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W-3_0a0Wp9HoQBvu-eGzXlwpj63Kk4kAGWECRax6CqdvML961niOTYkq60sv381rS-ffpQGG-apaTtvHkjkobNVlyXAG_WSekXevGmaOS5Q=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAO11aqjomkZcr8yeKtT5M8VUROGwz56w11UzR0pDBu333=BEPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJw2w6Guc6rX7A_8Nqob+w1=NKi2DfH9aj2-sg2EfgRFjDw0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJw2w5wfVt160uywmfOjhON8EbYkjg9bCU-6EKBO2y9TYFY5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180411075225.GG20665@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CALJw2w6OJZLrf20R--EYECPE65H0EJPxyUHRbSOJGQc9SNvupA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180411093724.GA21441@savin.petertodd.org>
	<W-3_0a0Wp9HoQBvu-eGzXlwpj63Kk4kAGWECRax6CqdvML961niOTYkq60sv381rS-ffpQGG-apaTtvHkjkobNVlyXAG_WSekXevGmaOS5Q=@protonmail.com>
From: Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:00:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w6T6+ZTtsWGoqicuL6r3A0X_Ru379aH_7JcxnBaUiFfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Few questions regarding ListTransaction
Precedence: list

Thanks for clarifying!

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:48 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning Karl-Johan Alm,
>
> To clarify:
>
> Nothing prevents a miner from completely ignoring nSequence when putting =
transactions in blocks.
>
> Unconfirmed transactions are, by definition, not recorded in blocks.  So =
if there is a transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 1000 satoshi, and ano=
ther conflicting transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 100000000 satoshi,=
 miners can include the latter one even if the first one came to their know=
ledge first, regardless nSequence.
>
> Thus, in the end "full replace-by-fee", where nSequence is IGNORED for pu=
rposes of replace-by-fee, is expected to become the norm, and we should rea=
lly be designing our wallets and so on so that we only trust transactions t=
hat have confirmations.
>
> The "nSequence=3D0xFFFFFFFF means opt-OUT of RBF" convention is only foll=
owed by fullnodes running standard bitcoind.  Nothing prevents miners from =
running patched bitcoind that ignores this rule, and connecting with simila=
r peers who also ignore this rule.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
>
> On April 11, 2018 5:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:10:43PM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Peter Todd pete@petertodd.org wrote:
>> >
>> > > Or via full replace-by-fee, which appears to be used by a significan=
t minority
>> > >
>> > > of miners:
>> >
>> > I was of the impression that final transactions (sequence=3D0xffffffff=
)
>> >
>> > cannot be RBF'd.
>>
>> My full-replace-by-fee tree ignores that. It also does preferential peer=
ing to
>>
>> ensure it's well connected with likewise peers, and thus the whole netwo=
rk.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------
>>
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>