replace-by-fee

[Mbidox]

If I am right, there is a very very very small risk that during a transaction bitcoins can be stolen. Or that somebody lose bitcoins through a transaction. (I do not mean the situation if the user has chosen a wrong address)

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"


2)
Or / (And):
What is the disadvantage of using the option "replace-by-fee". It must be a disadvantage, because the user has the possibility to deactivate it. If this option would have only advances, the user would not have the possibility to deactivate it.

Would appreciate your answers. Thank you.

[ranochigo]

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"

Depends on context. When the transactions are unconfirmed, merchants are more inclined to accept those transactions without optin replace-by-fee enabled when they have no confirmations since it can easily be replaced. When they have one confirmations, both are pretty much equally safe.

2)
Or / (And):
What is the disadvantage of using the option "replace-by-fee". It must be a disadvantage, because the user has the possibility to deactivate it. If this option would have only advances, the user would not have the possibility to deactivate it.

Would appreciate your answers. Thank you.

I would say its more of Electrum giving the user an option to choose what they want and what they don't. As stated, opt-in RBF gives the user the freedom to replace the transaction with another transaction with higher fee when it is unconfirmed. There are many useful situations where you can use this feature, etc low fee and wrong address. Merchants would never accept opt-in RBF transactions with 0 confirmations.

[adaseb]

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"

Depends on context. When the transactions are unconfirmed, merchants are more inclined to accept those transactions without optin replace-by-fee enabled when they have no confirmations since it can easily be replaced. When they have one confirmations, both are pretty much equally safe.

2)
Or / (And):
What is the disadvantage of using the option "replace-by-fee". It must be a disadvantage, because the user has the possibility to deactivate it. If this option would have only advances, the user would not have the possibility to deactivate it.

Would appreciate your answers. Thank you.

I would say its more of Electrum giving the user an option to choose what they want and what they don't. As stated, opt-in RBF gives the user the freedom to replace the transaction with another transaction with higher fee when it is unconfirmed. There are many useful situations where you can use this feature, etc low fee and wrong address. Merchants would never accept opt-in RBF transactions with 0 confirmations.

I don't think you can use RBF to another address, needs to be the same destination address.

[pooya87]

~
I don't think you can use RBF to another address, needs to be the same destination address.

think of RBF as a flag you put on your transactions (any kind of transaction from any address to any address). and that flag is only telling anyone looking at the transaction that this transaction can bump fees if it was needed.

in technical terms you just change the sequence number to a lower value and each time you "bump fees" that sequence value is increased to a higher value. Electrum uses 0 as its initial tx with RBF.

[Mbidox]

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"

Depends on context. When the transactions are unconfirmed, merchants are more inclined to accept those transactions without optin replace-by-fee enabled when they have no confirmations since it can easily be replaced. When they have one confirmations, both are pretty much equally safe.

If I understand you right your answer refers to the situation when the  sender is different from the receiver. So in your scenario it is only a risk for the receiver.

But this is not the scenario in which I am interested.

My question is in the setting when the address of the sender and the address of the receiver belong to the same person and this person only will transfer his BTC from one address to another:

So my question of post #1 refers to this situation:

If I am right, there is a very very very small risk that during a transaction bitcoins can be stolen. Or that somebody lose bitcoins through a transaction. (I do not mean the situation if the user has chosen a wrong address)

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"

Or isn't there any difference in relation of steeling or losing BTC's ?

[ranochigo]

I don't think you can use RBF to another address, needs to be the same destination address.

You can. What you are referring to is FSS (First Seen Safe) RBF where the miner will assume the first transaction that has seen the input as the reference transaction and the outputs in subsequent transactions has to have at least that value to the specified address.

My question is in the setting when the address of the sender and the address of the receiver belong to the same person and this person only will transfer his BTC from one address to another:

So my question of post #1 refers to this situation:

If I am right, there is a very very very small risk that during a transaction bitcoins can be stolen. Or that somebody lose bitcoins through a transaction. (I do not mean the situation if the user has chosen a wrong address)

My question relates to this rare situation.

1)
So which transaction is more secure
-when I use the option "replace-by-fee" or
-when I do not use the option "replace-by-fee"

The answer is that is the same. They are essentially the same thing, just a little change in the sequence which basically signals for opt in RBF.

There is no difference in security between them.

[Mbidox]

There is no difference in security between them.

Thank you.
OK. So you want to say:
If I am the sender and also the receiver, the risk that I
-lose my BTC's through a transaction or that
-my BTC's are stolen through a transaction
is the same, independently if I has activated the option "replace-by-fee" or not.
Right?

[ranochigo]

Thank you.
OK. So you want to say:
If I am the sender and also the receiver, the risk that I
-lose my BTC's through a transaction or that
-my BTC's are stolen through a transaction
is the same, independently if I has activated the option "replace-by-fee" or not.
Right?

Yes.