Is bip125-replaceable set to 0 on confirmed txes?

[jnano]

gettransaction for a tx that was sent with RBF shows "bip125-replaceable": "no".
Is the flag reset once a tx gets into a block?

[1715470463]

1715470463

[1715470463]

1715470463

[ranochigo]

The transaction still has a replacable flag, confirmed or not. However, the client ignores that once its confirmed; you can't use RBF on a confirmed transaction.

[jnano]

I wanted to check if a confirmed tx had the flag set or not.
Wouldn't it make more sense to show the actual flag?

[ranochigo]

I wanted to check if a confirmed tx had the flag set or not.
Wouldn't it make more sense to show the actual flag?

IMO, no. If a confirmed transaction can't be replaced, it wouldn't matter if it had the flag. Doing so would just cause more confusion.

You can get the raw transaction and check its sequence for that. People don't usually need to check it once its confirmed.

[jnano]

The current way is more confusing, as one expects the command to interpret the bit data of the transaction.

Knowing that RBF can't be used on txes already in a block seems self-evident? Especially to people who would use commands to check it.
Even if not, it's easier to learn that RBF only applies to the mempool than it is to manually check a raw transaction.

But how about a compromise...

Code:

bip125-replaceable: yes (only in mempool)

(Can anyone move the thread to Development & Technical Discussion?)

[achow101]

gettransaction for a tx that was sent with RBF shows "bip125-replaceable": "no".
Is the flag reset once a tx gets into a block?

Yes (basically). Once a transaction is confirmed, it is, by definition, no longer replaceable under BIP 125, therefore the field bip125-replaceable will say "no".

The current way is more confusing, as one expects the command to interpret the bit data of the transaction.

There's actually a bit more to whether something is actually replaceable than just the signalling. That is included in the checks for labeling a transaction as replaceable.

Knowing that RBF can't be used on txes already in a block seems self-evident? Especially to people who would use commands to check it.

Just because a confirmed transaction signals it does not necessarily mean that it was actually replaceable when in the mempool.

(Can anyone move the thread to Development & Technical Discussion?)

I moved it for you, but next time, do it yourself (OPs can move their threads) or use the report to moderator link.

[jnano]

Then maybe break it apart to two fields, RBF-flag: 0/1 and RBF-replaceable: 0/1 (reason: [already in block/other/reasons...).

Thanks for the move. I replied to a thread which I mistakenly thought was in Dev & Tech, then posted this in the same subforum without noticing it was actually Tech Support. Didn't know OPs can move.