On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > ==Abstract== > > BIP125 allows transactions to opt into replaceability with a primary use > case > of allowing users to increase the fees of unconfirming transactions, helping > create > a more efficient fee market place.
I don't really see how this is desirable: Just replace it-- the receiver foolishly spent it at its own peril, spending a unconfirmed payment from a third party is something that Core never does, it's reckless unless you're doing something like CPFPing it to yourself, which is harmless (either it'll work, or it'll fail and you'll be fine with that). Beyond being paternalistic the issue I see with your proposal is that its contrary to miner income-- you're asking miners to ignore these spends that otherwise they could accept. This seems unstable-- some people would ignore your rule even if it were otherwise widely adopted, leading to the network behavior having higher volatility. Instead, perhaps a BIP that very strongly advises parties to not spend unconfirmed outputs from third parties while making a payment to third parties would achieve your end? _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
