From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D7BAE1 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (li1228-87.members.linode.com [45.79.129.87]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 674A274A for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gWm91-00051H-2q; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:48:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:47:24 -0500 From: "David A. Harding" To: Russell O'Connor Message-ID: <20181211174724.k7kxcwcnrtfm46og@email> References: <20181209224157.mytaebwmw5o5wifa@email> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r2keoy2lowqc45tt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:12:38 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT 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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:48:32 -0000 --r2keoy2lowqc45tt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:36:59AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > I don't believe that the default RBF policy works that way. My > understanding is that current policy requires an absolute fee increase (by > an amount related to incrementalrelayfee). =20 Indeed, you are correct (BIP125 rule 4[1]). Thanks for the correction, -Dave [1] For the curious, the relevant code from master's validation.cpp: // Finally in addition to paying more fees than the conflicts the // new transaction must pay for its own bandwidth. CAmount nDeltaFees =3D nModifiedFees - nConflictingFees; if (nDeltaFees < ::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize)) { return state.DoS(0, false, REJECT_INSUFFICIENTFEE, "insufficient fee", false, strprintf("rejecting replacement %s, not enough additional = fees to relay; %s < %s", hash.ToString(), FormatMoney(nDeltaFees), FormatMoney(::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize)))); } --r2keoy2lowqc45tt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgxUkqkMp0LnoXjCr2dtBqWwiadMFAlwP+CwACgkQ2dtBqWwi adN+XBAAnhI47i+8DAWUl+2i8QSCYxz/R8qkJV4JM7pd5w8MosWGiIAnQzWXvh0s MWDlXgflJqs5uhX/dSNqjyhduEuOVxOoJZJkRt2k0JdnSBx3zd5Xj3FyXQpY1nOz drQNTq7qFYTBxYamqnqD/Z1MZZ/tkVObH+mrCPQIEQx3lxyE49NFRT3g3NlUxV6p 6EbUnQtA1H6VreQHaHOGyHTFHYfsdVHRaEdgJnwDBXqcceRrtMPCHeSa7SJU42IK qillO9Mn+PtlqvrrEUrHGaXxI6h13KkzeO/HlDXPTAlvK+Q/qM8AfFmiHH9FnnMt Y4x8Kev9ZqjVaDCXwr3YODpupx98O6xx1/JCU9jICA2/JExuxskEsmu4R52Hn87b Qj8ClpQxP82cuOrMFKlSvan9SebnpTAVh7tGHZxkzW/rk/nKuzebGh2hrwo5QyBb 7AUqSvIRkLToHjyFPIMoxlpm+5EzF8B1c2ZMAir84RSFkJuqPHixInhikAy6Z7hT 05CmEvr1qeou1khJAS8UTaIrQXbaL4gh/9CyA4dg0n8G9EFUzqiBfvaqU4HNyCC1 kMwvixXmCvF/vlCPqyLea4tgMvstLblsl2yphNdsQl18sASIyA783R/eU+ijp6S0 1b3KcpUThm5MiKLelXyYpPsp4eNj2PhepiePrUI6prW5eJcCCQs= =djWt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r2keoy2lowqc45tt--