Author: Peter Todd 2018-02-12 23:42:25
Published on: 2018-02-12T23:42:25+00:00
In an email conversation between Peter Todd and Russell O'Connor, they discussed the issue with rule 3 of BIP 125. The problem arises when Alice re-spends her unconfirmed payment, which has a large absolute fee even though her fee-rate is very low. This means that double-spending to pay both Bob and Alice would invalidate Alice's sweep-transaction and "pin" the RBF transaction. Todd suggested that the effective fee rate of the maximum feerate package that can be built from the set of transactions beginning with the candidate replacement should be used instead of what O'Connor proposed. However, calculating this value may not be trivial as it is currently only done in the miner code and not the mempool. The possibility of reusing the CPFP calculation was also mentioned.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T00:37:39.666726+00:00