Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C74D1BCF for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 03:44:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E28135F for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 03:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 40q4Qm1McNz9s3D; Mon, 21 May 2018 13:44:32 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Jim Posen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org> <87vabnq9ui.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:14:06 +0930 Message-ID: <87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Matt Corallo Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard? 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, 21 May 2018 03:44:37 -0000 Jim Posen writes: > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce RBF > on the spending tx? Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so we're actually good here. However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out: will be replaced by a new transaction...: 3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum paid by the original transactions. I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the consequences of dropping this heuristic? Peter? Thanks! Rusty.