📅 Original date posted:2022-10-14
📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 02:44:04AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Relay of fullrbf transactions works reasonable well
> > already, unless you get unlucky with your selected peers. The only
> > missing piece is a few percent of hashrate that will accept fullrbf
> > replacement transactions.
>
> I don't believe relay of fullrbf transactions works well right now. The missing piece you mentioned is important and a real need for all full node users to try fullrbf.
Relay of full-rbf transactions works well right now precisely because a few
implementations exist of preferential rbf peering. I'm personally running four
nodes with it enabled, two using my own custom patches, and another two using
ariad's patch:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25600
I haven't seen a lot of non-opt-in doublespends get mined. But I have seen a
few now via my Alice OTS calendar. This can of course increase dramatically as
miners turn on full-rbf.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221014/7d612ef5/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 23:14:30
in reply to nevent1q…fvlv
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 23:14:30Event JSON
{
"id": "5b48899355ca4dbfa86938b276238bad46a0a45d8ed0dd43c424fea8bbd37f0d",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686179670,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"946b9a8231803f73c278c08ca74b58bc34d6ba681eae8ff2a82e75b78f2e09ab",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"74a5d5123bbf55a6b11ad65fa171469ea1c97491fdb10d7fe2719fef322367ad",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"745e2723e72d7ded3f0dd293d710b706cd302ab8476983c292d4bdb7f9c5d366"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-10-14\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 02:44:04AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Relay of fullrbf transactions works reasonable well\n\u003e \u003e already, unless you get unlucky with your selected peers. The only\n\u003e \u003e missing piece is a few percent of hashrate that will accept fullrbf\n\u003e \u003e replacement transactions. \n\u003e \n\u003e I don't believe relay of fullrbf transactions works well right now. The missing piece you mentioned is important and a real need for all full node users to try fullrbf.\n\nRelay of full-rbf transactions works well right now precisely because a few\nimplementations exist of preferential rbf peering. I'm personally running four\nnodes with it enabled, two using my own custom patches, and another two using\nariad's patch:\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25600\n\nI haven't seen a lot of non-opt-in doublespends get mined. But I have seen a\nfew now via my Alice OTS calendar. This can of course increase dramatically as\nminers turn on full-rbf.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221014/7d612ef5/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "ca62fe174c9cb20404f589eb569444d891efef979c3e3ee1d8c046eede886c616e05b9fe911bb0540ac7e906e9386feaa6540ffa3c02c1b44c4057c7bf20f152"
}