Um, it's called "replace-by-fee" for a reason. The transaction [set] paying the highest fee [rate] is always the one that will be accepted. You can't use the order in which transactions were received to determine which one is the "replacing" transaction and which is/are the "replaced" transaction(s) because order is not defined for transactions in the mempool. (Ordering transactions is precisely why we must have a block chain.)
On Thursday, 9 July 2015, at 5:42 pm, Raystonn wrote: > It is a mistake for RBF to assume a transaction with lower fee is invalid. > If I paid a higher fee to get a one hour confirmation in the current > congestion, I might want to drop back to a lower fee if I see the spam stop. > > On 9 Jul 2015 4:55 pm, Matt Whitlock <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm presently running my full node with Peter Todd's full replace-by-fee > > patch set [1]. I am seeing a LOT of messages in the log about replacement > > transactions being rejected due to their paying less in fees than the > > transactions they would replace. I understand that this could happen > > legitimately from time to time, due to my node's receiving a replacing > > transaction prior to receiving the replaced transaction; however, due to > > the ongoing spam attack, I am seeing a steady stream of these rejection > > messages, dozens per second at times. I am wondering if each replacement > > rejection ought to penalize the peer who relayed the offending transaction, > > and if the penalty builds up enough, then the peer could be temporarily > > banned, similar to how other "misbehaving" peers are treated. > > > > [1] https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/commits/replace-by-fee-v0.10.2 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
