I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.
The reasons I can find for not being adopted are listed here - https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not First-seen-safe Replace-by-fee Those reasons do not seem pertinent here - given OptinRBF already exists as an option and the added benefit of continuing to be able to support 0-conf. ________________________________ Daniel Lipshitz GAP600| www.gap600.com Phone: +44 113 4900 117 Skype: daniellipshitz123 Twitter: @daniellipshitz On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho <j...@synonym.to> wrote: > Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with > the design? > > While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like > more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) > I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering. > > -- > John Carvalho > CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/> > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <dan...@gap600.com> wrote: > >> Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being >> aware of it. >> >> First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >> by Peter Todd seems to be a very suitable option and route >> which balances FullRBF while retaining the significant 0-conf use case. >> >> This would seem like a good way forward. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingm...@woobling.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html >>> >>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
