Author: Russell O'Connor 2018-03-08 20:07:43
Published on: 2018-03-08T20:07:43+00:00
Peter Todd and Russell O'Connor were discussing the proposed change in RBF policy. Peter Todd pointed out that replacing a transaction without paying fees is identical to what an attacker is trying to do, making any such scheme vulnerable to attack. Russell argued that the current policy is problematic in practice where normal transactions are being performed and no one is attacking each other. However, Peter countered that the argument is not valid as normal users creating issues has nothing to do with relaxing anti-DoS protections. He suggested that replaced transactions require a fee increase of at least min-fee-rate times the size of all the transactions being ejected (in addition to the other proposed requirements). Moreover, Peter questioned how often non-attacking users face issues, but Russell pointed out that institutional wallets sweeping incoming payments regularly cause this problem. They also discussed miners' preference for higher package fee rates regardless of personal preferred RBF policies, making it important to develop a reasonable standard RBF policy that aligns with miner incentives and is robust against possible DoS vectors. This change in RBF policy can partially mitigate the problem of pinned transactions.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T00:36:13.137849+00:00