I have to admit, at the time I asked this I didn't read the exact RBF 
specification yet and assumed some extra rbf flag bit would have been 
introduced.
But as it's just using sequence numbers < FFFFFFFF-1 just setting them to 
such a value of course worked perfectly fine.
Thanks for the advice.

Am Freitag, 30. September 2016 17:25:14 UTC+2 schrieb Andreas Schildbach:
>
> Setting the flag is only the easy part. The hard part is properly 
> supporting double spends (and at the same time still support the old 
> behaviour). But yeah, just try it. 
>
>
> On 09/29/2016 11:04 PM, Tobias Brandt wrote: 
> > Ok, thanks for the reply. 
> > I want to allow my users to send a transaction again with a higher fee 
> > when it's not confirmed yet. So it would be nice if this will be 
> > supported by the API at some point. 
> > But I'll take a look at how to do it by using sequence numbers too. But 
> > my understanding right now is that there is/will be a special flag that 
> > has to be set to flag a transaction as rbf.. how could this be possible 
> > by using sequence numbers on inputs? 
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, 27. September 2016 14:43:41 UTC+2 schrieb Andreas 
> Schildbach: 
> > 
> >     You can set sequence numbers on inputs so yes you could create an 
> RBF 
> >     transaction, but there is currently no API for double spending. 
> > 
> > 
> >     On 09/27/2016 09:23 AM, Tobias Brandt wrote: 
> >     > With "supported" I mean that it's possible to send an RBF 
> transaction 
> >     > (and send again with higher fee). 
> >     > Maybe that's also already possible and I missed it. 
> >     > 
> >     > 
> >     > Am Montag, 26. September 2016 10:22:06 UTC+2 schrieb Andreas 
> >     Schildbach: 
> >     > 
> >     >     What do you mean by "supported"? There is 
> >     >     TransactionInput.isOptInFullRBF() and 
> >     Transaction.isOptInFullRBF() for 
> >     >     quite some time. They are considered risky by 
> >     DefaultRiskAnalysis, but 
> >     >     you can customize your own analysis if you want. 
> >     > 
> >     > 
> >     >     On 09/25/2016 12:37 PM, Tobias Immernochmeinesache wrote: 
> >     > 
> >     >     > neither do I really think that RBF was a good idea nor do I 
> >     like 
> >     >     peter 
> >     >     > todd a lot (not that this matters but somehow I had to 
> >     mention it). 
> >     >     > But still I have a usecase for the application I'm 
> developing 
> >     >     right now 
> >     >     > where it would be of some use. 
> >     >     > So is it planned to make RBF transaction possible in 
> bitcoinj? 
> >     > 
> >     > 
> >     > -- 
> >     > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> >     > Groups "bitcoinj" group. 
> >     > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> >     send 
> >     > an email to bitcoinj+u...@googlegroups.com 
> >     > <mailto:bitcoinj+u...@googlegroups.com>. 
> >     > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> >     <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "bitcoinj" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> > an email to bitcoinj+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> > <mailto:bitcoinj+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"bitcoinj" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to bitcoinj+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to