0 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 23 Jan \ parent \ on: Peter Todd proposes RBFr bitdevs
Ok, so your comment was based on the assumption that the cycling problem isn't fixed.
If it is fixed, do you have further objections?
You're departing from how we've been treating unconfirmed transactions so far. While discounting the tail of the mempool for top transactions intuitively makes plausible, instead of treating every transaction at its face value, that generally introduces new potential attack vectors. I'd like to see a more substantial exploration of that before I'd be convinced that's not a problem
reply