📅 Original date posted:2018-04-11
📝 Original message:OK.
Thank you guys for clarification.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying!
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:48 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > Good morning Karl-Johan Alm,
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> > Nothing prevents a miner from completely ignoring nSequence when putting
> transactions in blocks.
> >
> > Unconfirmed transactions are, by definition, not recorded in blocks. So
> if there is a transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 1000 satoshi, and
> another conflicting transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 100000000
> satoshi, miners can include the latter one even if the first one came to
> their knowledge first, regardless nSequence.
> >
> > Thus, in the end "full replace-by-fee", where nSequence is IGNORED for
> purposes of replace-by-fee, is expected to become the norm, and we should
> really be designing our wallets and so on so that we only trust
> transactions that have confirmations.
> >
> > The "nSequence=0xFFFFFFFF means opt-OUT of RBF" convention is only
> followed by fullnodes running standard bitcoind. Nothing prevents miners
> from running patched bitcoind that ignores this rule, and connecting with
> similar peers who also ignore this rule.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
> >
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> >
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >
> > On April 11, 2018 5:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:10:43PM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Or via full replace-by-fee, which appears to be used by a
> significant minority
> >> > >
> >> > > of miners:
> >> >
> >> > I was of the impression that final transactions (sequence=0xffffffff)
> >> >
> >> > cannot be RBF'd.
> >>
> >> My full-replace-by-fee tree ignores that. It also does preferential
> peering to
> >>
> >> ensure it's well connected with likewise peers, and thus the whole
> network.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> >>
> >> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> >>
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >>
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180411/bc0c76ff/attachment.html>;
Maksim Solovjov [ARCHIVE] /
npub1p2…cvqna
2023-06-07 18:11:38
in reply to nevent1q…axur
Author Public Key
npub1p2phu35hhc0mmf4cre8873nyaakd5vxxdrn4x0nwk6vft9vm9v4slcvqnaSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 18:11:38Event JSON
{
"id": "e15933f5374c8f9a3e9657aef1c555d19f397ac8cc3986488ca354b6847ae158",
"pubkey": "0a837e4697be1fbda6b81e4e7f4664ef6cda30c668e7533e6eb69895959b2b2b",
"created_at": 1686161498,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"982a0c82bfb8d6491e92dfa42dfd12e7a2df5bc1554108026ba2680500a8b0bc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f7c312ebb65fc90dbc8f55efd390ee3f1e5b5324e60c51ef756c4883f3e5046c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f61d6f5f7a545bba4c32170f8630a5adeb1b2ad9ecf2881dde3988cfe447b801"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-04-11\n📝 Original message:OK.\n\nThank you guys for clarification.\n\nOn Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Thanks for clarifying!\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:48 PM, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Good morning Karl-Johan Alm,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e To clarify:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Nothing prevents a miner from completely ignoring nSequence when putting\n\u003e transactions in blocks.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Unconfirmed transactions are, by definition, not recorded in blocks. So\n\u003e if there is a transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 1000 satoshi, and\n\u003e another conflicting transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 100000000\n\u003e satoshi, miners can include the latter one even if the first one came to\n\u003e their knowledge first, regardless nSequence.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Thus, in the end \"full replace-by-fee\", where nSequence is IGNORED for\n\u003e purposes of replace-by-fee, is expected to become the norm, and we should\n\u003e really be designing our wallets and so on so that we only trust\n\u003e transactions that have confirmations.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e The \"nSequence=0xFFFFFFFF means opt-OUT of RBF\" convention is only\n\u003e followed by fullnodes running standard bitcoind. Nothing prevents miners\n\u003e from running patched bitcoind that ignores this rule, and connecting with\n\u003e similar peers who also ignore this rule.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Regards,\n\u003e \u003e ZmnSCPxj\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On April 11, 2018 5:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:10:43PM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e Or via full replace-by-fee, which appears to be used by a\n\u003e significant minority\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e of miners:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e I was of the impression that final transactions (sequence=0xffffffff)\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e cannot be RBF'd.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e My full-replace-by-fee tree ignores that. It also does preferential\n\u003e peering to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e ensure it's well connected with likewise peers, and thus the whole\n\u003e network.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e ---------------------------------------\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180411/bc0c76ff/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "afe8bf1bd917169fb42292ee0a500debcde397db2fa07a9883e4d3205e65e008e3a659b5ed6049fb12f69ec92007d6af48a05fea7ba51446d37e87fee4e2017e"
}