On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:14:06PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Jim Posen <jim.po...@gmail.com> writes: > > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce RBF > > on the spending tx? > > Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so > we're actually good here. > > However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a > large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out: > > will be replaced by a new transaction...: > > 3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum > paid by the original transactions. > > I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of > up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the > consequences of dropping this heuristic? Peter?
We've discussed this before: that rule prevents bandwidth usage DoS attacks on the mempool; it's not a "heuristic". If you drop it, an attacker can repeatedly broadcast and replace a series of transactions to use up tx relay bandwidth for significantly lower cost than otherwise. Though these days with relatively high minimum fees that may not matter. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
