Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB6227A4 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:28:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D812417E for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w19so80893546uac.0 for ; Sun, 02 Jul 2017 19:28:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=wNQZVq0IXkjSU2oLKNcTy/NFwqY8cWWytOLy0q0b+7M=; b=R1o1i/G9YQzivIEOO7mVe/lkaUZUgxuPCjvAr7tmzD2t1Dusui8KVqSkug6J1PH4Ii oxB1wFBe9UxrX4R46a9KSZj/oV8ZypzIOoHRmBUoCV58pI2j5cNq137ari0r/Qwzi0a1 00392W2+/ci8Dfhe9gy5oha/N5UF6bV9UbGF9AUhz0+gNHOS8qX1jaJpp1DHDiGB0FzB yfGDgnZKTZsuVHAy6cPX3zN6qP9eLJ76NLL2BzghOtpkhbJVlRBdiIgjkBFlZcQxTLem O/weDjw9zNWchufNchtT7pUc2Ebftx9icd1wrFpOVhIHeR+7PCbIFX1OC1KoXXYjfBFl 6ioA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wNQZVq0IXkjSU2oLKNcTy/NFwqY8cWWytOLy0q0b+7M=; b=UIDo6tJeNADLPWBwddQkBfNJ911HpBmf7aW8eQyGXXECiQJQ6RphrmHrn974L+ffBr dNF+En2Re1sKZlBhFGWmYNncYuAQb00P2OLvCP2tpt/xQyH8+tVn/yjQJxo2Z50W3hjK zNmtZgf1ajVJlJUKnnVPIMc46+WQwgBjhjZCnkG6fYdOYymE5P/tnncrfvCmZOsjl7Dr pLneQgp4L5YVqtekZKo76HYtuitfvssIjP4w8AHjgVpUKAp0swAktEf0xaK49NattlAJ xNPoIM7BsFjrpAuLn4QG/u3VVMLnqRkFL3kh+74MYBW1Mwj8TDBxQqQDFgZP5dMGaOrR MFlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwnnCT+jhaum3fiaTbTpikpHYkdOZj/hjgh2YHKOuWm/kGhRLYx vdigUu50Kn0QHXvWN/W1ZpHGkAuucA== X-Received: by 10.176.67.98 with SMTP id k89mr20076389uak.103.1499048916091; Sun, 02 Jul 2017 19:28:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.40.2 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Jul 2017 19:28:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:28:34 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gIiiKT1QQyyOLsmau9NozqNKE9U Message-ID: To: Rhavar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 02:28:38 -0000 On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Rhavar wrote: > That's not really realistic. In practice some receivers do big sweeps and > include unconfirmed inputs. Replacing the transaction means you need to pay > the cost of the sweep, which you probably don't want to do (can be in the > order of $100s of dollars). Perhaps I am not following what you're saying here. If the receiver is paying a higher feerate than your replacement, he'll get it confirmed as fast or faster than your replacement in any case.