Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

This seems like something that might be better dealt with by modifying the RBF eviction policy to calculate feerate separation between the transactions in the mempool and opportunistically evict the sweep transaction+parent if it has a sufficiently different feerate from the bumped fee

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

> Perhaps I am not following what you"re saying here. > If the receiver is paying a higher feerate than your replacement, > he"ll get it confirmed as fast or faster than your replacement in any > case. It actually doesn't really matter much. Let's say I want to pay Alice and Bob (unrelated

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Rhavar wrote: > That's not really realistic. In practice some receivers do big sweeps and > include unconfirmed inputs. Replacing the transaction means you need to pay > the cost of the sweep, which you probably don't want to do (can be in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: OP_BRIBVERIFY - the op code needed for Blind Merge Mined drivechains

Hi, Sorry for the delay, I overlooked this email until now. I see that Chris and CryptAxe both answered but I will also answer, because the message was addressed to me. On 6/30/2017 12:00 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > >Your way is actually very similar to mine. Mine _forces_ the bribe to be > >in the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

This isn't BIP material, as it merely describes a local policy. (BIP125 itself is also local policy, but one that involves standardisation since it expresses how wallets interoperate with nodes with that policy.) If you wish to suggest this policy change, you should just implement it and open

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

> I don"t really see how this is desirable: Just replace it- That's not really realistic. In practice some receivers do big sweeps and include unconfirmed inputs. Replacing the transaction means you need to pay the cost of the sweep, which you probably don't want to do (can be in the order of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev 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

[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: No chaining off replaceable transactions

==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. However this goal is hindered when the receiver of a transaction spends from the