Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-27 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:13:05AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: Case 1: Increasing the fee on a single tx - We start with a 1-in-2-out P2PKH using transaction t1, 226 bytes in size with the minimal relay fee, 2.26uBTC. Increasing the fee while respecting

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Tom Harding
I think this is a significant step forward. I suggest you also need to ensure that no inputs can be removed or changed (other than scriptsigs) -- only added. Otherwise, the semantics change too much for the original signers. Imagine a tx with two inputs from different parties. Should it be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tom Harding t...@thinlink.com wrote: It's not difficult to imagine real-world consequences to not having contributed to the transaction. I'm having a hard time. Can you help me understand a specific case where this makes a difference. It appears to be a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Danny Thorpe
Apologies if this has already been stated and I missed it, but: Can transactions in a buried block be overridden/replaced by RBF? Or is RBF strictly limited to transactions that have not yet been incorporated into a block? Thanks, -Danny On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Peter Todd

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Pieter Wuille
It's just a mempool policy rule. Allowing the contents of blocks to change (other than by mining a competing chain) would be pretty much the largest possible change to Bitcoin's design --

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Tom Harding t...@thinlink.com wrote: The bitcoin transaction is part of a real-world deal with unknown connections to the other parts I'm having a hard time parsing this. You might as well say that its part of a weeblix for how informative it is, since you've

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Danny Thorpe
Thanks for the clarification. So, since RBF applies only to pending transactions in the mempool awaiting incorporation into a block, there is a window of opportunity in which the pending tx is incorporated into a block at the same time that the spender is constructing and publishing a replacement

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Adam Back
I think the point is the replacement tx spends the same inputs (plus additional inputs), so if the original tx is accepted, and your replacement rejected, thats good news - you dont have to pay the higher fee, the extra input remains unspent (and can be used later for other purpose) and the extra

Re: [Bitcoin-development] First-Seen-Safe Replace-by-Fee

2015-05-26 Thread Tom Harding
On 5/26/2015 4:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Tom Harding t...@thinlink.com wrote: The bitcoin transaction is part of a real-world deal with unknown connections to the other parts I'm having a hard time parsing this. You might as well say that its part of a