š
Original date posted:2018-12-11
š Original message:On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:36:59AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> I don't believe that the default RBF policy works that way. My
> understanding is that current policy requires an absolute fee increase (by
> an amount related to incrementalrelayfee).
Indeed, you are correct (BIP125 rule 4[1]).
Thanks for the correction,
-Dave
[1] For the curious, the relevant code from master's validation.cpp:
// Finally in addition to paying more fees than the conflicts the
// new transaction must pay for its own bandwidth.
CAmount nDeltaFees = nModifiedFees - nConflictingFees;
if (nDeltaFees < ::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize))
{
return state.DoS(0, false,
REJECT_INSUFFICIENTFEE, "insufficient fee", false,
strprintf("rejecting replacement %s, not enough additional fees to relay; %s < %s",
hash.ToString(),
FormatMoney(nDeltaFees),
FormatMoney(::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize))));
}
-------------- 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/20181211/20ba89d0/attachment.sig>;
David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub16dā¦x4wrd
2023-06-07 18:15:35
in reply to nevent1qā¦t76d
Author Public Key
npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdPublished at
2023-06-07 18:15:35Event JSON
{
"id": "6b19802e7ce3ce4a5a2f0e4c2a705cc1df18e26ac45f70f03e854cadef6f2523",
"pubkey": "d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2",
"created_at": 1686161735,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"77c824d861e497590991b7dc940a75787db11a7b2eab6adcf5563d0847a4df18",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1e667f72eb35278a9cef80ab2054dec52fa45dc64f8b0a344dbc23a736c572fa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-12-11\nš Original message:On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:36:59AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:\n\u003e I don't believe that the default RBF policy works that way. My\n\u003e understanding is that current policy requires an absolute fee increase (by\n\u003e an amount related to incrementalrelayfee). \n\nIndeed, you are correct (BIP125 rule 4[1]).\n\nThanks for the correction,\n\n-Dave\n\n[1] For the curious, the relevant code from master's validation.cpp:\n\n // Finally in addition to paying more fees than the conflicts the\n // new transaction must pay for its own bandwidth.\n CAmount nDeltaFees = nModifiedFees - nConflictingFees;\n if (nDeltaFees \u003c ::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize))\n {\n return state.DoS(0, false,\n REJECT_INSUFFICIENTFEE, \"insufficient fee\", false,\n strprintf(\"rejecting replacement %s, not enough additional fees to relay; %s \u003c %s\",\n hash.ToString(),\n FormatMoney(nDeltaFees),\n FormatMoney(::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize))));\n }\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/20181211/20ba89d0/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0e24da98abb9ee4615ee2b2d1ca780e59337fd3aa28c586953a37b87475b4a05ab139a24884ceb7ce5bae3f447c6d281331cbdcf0a21b25d8d58dde324e36494"
}