> What exactly does the 'word' being spread about censorship actually accomplish? Since the majority of hashing power are colluding, they can do whatever they want, and no amount of social engineering will help that.
Without this they can cherry-pick individual transactions to not send, meaning the cost to censor a tx is what you are willing to pay in fees as one person. If you pay 0.1 BTC in fees the miner may have stronger interests than that amount to keep censoring the tx. If you can attach the txs together the cost of censoring one tx becomes amplified by each tx, so instead of losing 0.1 BTC over time miners would be choosing to lose the sum of all attached fees from txs that touch the chain of attachment.
You don't understand. This is a non problem and if it were a problem, your solution doesn't work.
I heard how evil RBF is, but it seems to just be a flag that indicates the tx is not final and likely to be changed, like when used in micropayments.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawikiThe only thing to quibble with I saw was the lack of ability to use the sequenceid to encode information without enabling RBF as the entire bitspace (other than -2 and -1) activate RBF. But encoding stuff into sequenceid is probably a bad idea anyway.
I have no idea how this got turned into "anybody can cancel payments"
Anybody making such claims, can you explain how somebody can cancel a payment I send with sequenceid of 0xffffffff?
Or how anybody can undo a micropayment with a sequenceid and undo a payment?
James
