I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.The reasons I can find for not being adopted are listed here - https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not First-seen-safe Replace-by-feeThose reasons do not seem pertinent here - given OptinRBF already exists as an option and the added benefit of continuing to be able to support 0-conf.________________________________Daniel LipshitzGAP600| www.gap600.comPhone: +44 113 4900 117Skype: daniellipshitz123Twitter: @daniellipshitz_______________________________________________On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho <john@synonym.to> wrote:Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with the design?While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com> wrote:Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being aware of it.First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case.This would seem like a good way forward.________________________________On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org> wrote:https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev