Lawrence Nahum [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:Chun Wang <1240902 <at> ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:Chun Wang <1240902 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks.

FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF.

We think Full RBF is better for a number of reasons:

-user experience
-efficiency
-cost
-code complexity

We think FSS RBF is great progress but ultimately less efficient and more
complicated to keep alive something that never worked properly.

And why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the
option paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward.

A lot of users don't have multiple UTXO handy.

Full RBF is the best, second FSS RBF and we'd be looking into supporting
them both separately so that miners and users can pick whichever they
prefer.

If users only had one UTXO it makes sense to use Full RBF since there are no
other options.

Disclosure: GreenAddress always believed zero conf transactions are not
secure and that miners have the incentive to run FBF; this bias doesn't make
the above less true