Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 05:48:39 -0400
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <W-3_0a0Wp9HoQBvu-eGzXlwpj63Kk4kAGWECRax6CqdvML961niOTYkq60sv381rS-ffpQGG-apaTtvHkjkobNVlyXAG_WSekXevGmaOS5Q=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180411093724.GA21441@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAO11aqjomkZcr8yeKtT5M8VUROGwz56w11UzR0pDBu333=BEPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJw2w6Guc6rX7A_8Nqob+w1=NKi2DfH9aj2-sg2EfgRFjDw0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJw2w5wfVt160uywmfOjhON8EbYkjg9bCU-6EKBO2y9TYFY5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180411075225.GG20665@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CALJw2w6OJZLrf20R--EYECPE65H0EJPxyUHRbSOJGQc9SNvupA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180411093724.GA21441@savin.petertodd.org>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Few questions regarding ListTransaction
Precedence: list

Good morning Karl-Johan Alm,

To clarify:

Nothing prevents a miner from completely ignoring nSequence when putting tr=
ansactions in blocks.

Unconfirmed transactions are, by definition, not recorded in blocks.  So if=
 there is a transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 1000 satoshi, and anoth=
er conflicting transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 100000000 satoshi, m=
iners can include the latter one even if the first one came to their knowle=
dge first, regardless nSequence.

Thus, in the end "full replace-by-fee", where nSequence is IGNORED for purp=
oses of replace-by-fee, is expected to become the norm, and we should reall=
y be designing our wallets and so on so that we only trust transactions tha=
t have confirmations.

The "nSequence=3D0xFFFFFFFF means opt-OUT of RBF" convention is only follow=
ed by fullnodes running standard bitcoind.  Nothing prevents miners from ru=
nning patched bitcoind that ignores this rule, and connecting with similar =
peers who also ignore this rule.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


=E2=80=8BSent with ProtonMail Secure Email.=E2=80=8B

=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90

On April 11, 2018 5:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:10:43PM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm wrote:
>=20
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Peter Todd pete@petertodd.org wrote:
> >=20
> > > Or via full replace-by-fee, which appears to be used by a significant=
 minority
> > >=20
> > > of miners:
> >=20
> > I was of the impression that final transactions (sequence=3D0xffffffff)
> >=20
> > cannot be RBF'd.
>=20
> My full-replace-by-fee tree ignores that. It also does preferential peeri=
ng to
>=20
> ensure it's well connected with likewise peers, and thus the whole networ=
k.
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
>=20
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>=20
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=20
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev