From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YxN2b-0004F4-Av for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 22:09:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.42; envelope-from=danny.thorpe@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com ([209.85.218.42]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YxN2a-0004fg-GX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 22:09:41 +0000 Received: by oiww2 with SMTP id w2so89055888oiw.0 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.68.10 with SMTP id r10mr23372422oet.21.1432678175079; Tue, 26 May 2015 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.2.105 with HTTP; Tue, 26 May 2015 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150526051305.GA23502@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:09:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Danny Thorpe To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11331258b402e705170361b4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (danny.thorpe[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YxN2a-0004fg-GX Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 22:09:41 -0000 --001a11331258b402e705170361b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks for the clarification. So, since RBF applies only to pending transactions in the mempool awaiting incorporation into a block, there is a window of opportunity in which the pending tx is incorporated into a block at the same time that the spender is constructing and publishing a replacement for that pending tx. The replacement transaction would be rejected by the peer network as a double spend because it conflicts with the now confirmed original tx, and the spender will have to go back and create a new stand-alone transaction to accomplish what they hoped to do with an RBF replacement. So an implementation that wishes to take advantage of RBF will still need to have a "plan B" implementation path to handle the corner case of a replacement tx being rejected as a double spend. Is this correct? I'm just trying to get my head around the implementation cost vs benefit of RBF in the context of my applications. Thanks, -Danny On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > It's just a mempool policy rule. > > Allowing the contents of blocks to change (other than by mining a > competing chain) would be pretty much the largest possible change to > Bitcoin's design.... > --001a11331258b402e705170361b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the clarification.

So, since= RBF applies only to pending transactions in the mempool awaiting incorpora= tion into a block, there is a window of opportunity in which the pending tx= is incorporated into a block at the same time that the spender is construc= ting and publishing a replacement for that pending tx.=C2=A0

=
The replacement transaction would be rejected by the peer networ= k as a double spend because it conflicts with the now confirmed original tx= , and the spender will have to go back and create a new stand-alone transac= tion to accomplish what they hoped to do with an RBF replacement.

So an implementation that wishes to take advantage of RBF w= ill still need to have a "plan B" implementation path to handle t= he corner case of a replacement tx being rejected as a double spend.
<= div>
Is this correct? =C2=A0

I'm= just trying to get my head around the implementation cost vs benefit of RB= F in the context of my applications.

Thanks,
=
-Danny

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Pieter Wuille <= pieter.wuille@= gmail.com> wrote:

It's just a mempool policy rule.

Allowing the contents of blocks to change (other than by min= ing a competing chain) would be pretty much the largest possible change to = Bitcoin's design....


--001a11331258b402e705170361b4--