Bitcoin Forum

I have a question, say I broadcast a transaction with an RBF flag, and then try to replace it with a new version at a higher fee.
Is there not a case in which some nodes that don't support RBF reject it as they see it as double spent.
Now you have some nodes that still contain the original transaction ignoring the new one and is there not a chance that it could still get minded?
Thanks

yes, that is possible, if they are designed/coded in a way to ignore RBF flag and mark new tx as duplicate tx.,

but i doubt anyone want to ignore higher fees.

if thats the case and if your 1st tx gets mined ,then your 2nd tx will be rejected.

Thanks, it was a hypothetical question I had as bitcoin core is backwards compatible with older versions so I assumed there may still be some nodes that do not accept RBF, having said that I doubt they are mining

https://medium.com/@overtorment/bitcoin-replace-by-fee-guide-e10032f9a93f

I think this is the case, but you never know until a service (node operator) tells you so. During one of the recent spam attacks (when high priority fees were reaching 1000 satoshis/byte), I submitted a stuck transaction to an acceleration service on the forum. It was an RBF transaction that had already been submitted with a higher fee, since the network fee rate kept increasing.

I was told that the transaction was a double spend, so it couldn't be accelerated. I'm curious which pool the service was submitting to, but I can't find the original post now.


It's possible that either transaction could be confirmed, depending which pools mine subsequent blocks. I've seen two transactions spending the same inputs, where the lower fee transaction got confirmed (and the higher fee transaction got discarded by the network). Pools have transaction priority mechanisms that we'll never be privy to, and users on the network can always submit the lower fee RBF transaction to an accelerator service. In that case, fees aren't everything.

I believe it was via btc or btc.com, anyway I can imagine a miner rejecting rbf transactions for political reasons