opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO. As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key required means you have to pre-plan.... suppose you're building a vault meant to distribute funds over many years, do you really want a *specific* precommitted key you have to maintain? What happens to your ability to bump should it be compromised (which may be more likely if it's intended to be a hot-wallet function for bumping).
Furthermore, it's quite often the case that someone might do a transaction that pays you that is low fee that you want to bump but they choose to opt-out... then what? It's better that you should always be able to fee bump. -- @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 6:24 AM ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Good morning DA, > > > > Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow > > invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip > > and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee > > that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as there is no > > consensus about either the previous version of the transaction or its > > replacement until one of them is mined and the block accepted. -DA. > > As I understand from the followup from Peter, the point is not "this > should never happen", rather the point is "this should not happen *more > often*." > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
