Urgent Help. recover stuck transaction from phishing attack??

[BlackHatCoiner]

Sure, but this is for people who know what they are doing, and will know only to link another input from the same address or from a standalone address which does not compromise their privacy by linking to the previous inputs.

In my opinion, that's the very reason they should implement it, or at least allow it as an option. The thinking behind this is false. You shouldn't create only what's being known from the majority that is unaware of the subject. Oppositely, you should push them learn. I mean, you're trying to make the most privacy providing wallet, you shouldn't expect it to be easy on its use by those who only want to just send and receive. Isn't your purpose to maximize privacy for the ones that respect it? As I said, an option should be the least the could do.

[bob123]

Why? Let's say I have a transaction spending 0.1 BTC, paying 0.066 to one address and 0.033 to another address, and 0.001 BTC in fees. I bump it by including a second input of 0.001 BTC, all of which goes to the fee. The two outputs remain unchanged.

Having an unused output of exactly the amount you'd contribute to the fee is quite unrealistic IMO. At least not if you consolidate and/or mix UTXO's regularly (which you should).
So you'd have to add an UTXO which is larger, either resulting in a higher change output or creating a 3rd output which is then guaranteed to be the change.

But the option should be available for those who understand the risks.

I personally would like to have that feature.
However, lots of people would use RBF because they believe they know how to handle that while in fact they don't. These people will inevitably compromise their privacy.
And i believe that was the reason to not include RBF.

And let's be honest.. if you know what you are doing, you rarely ever need to use RBF anyway.
I can't remember the last time i had to bump a fee.

[hosseinimr93]

I don't think many (any) wallet devs want to implement what you describe because it would allow users to double-spend transactions in a way that would involve the recipient not receiving the original amount of coin as was in the original transaction.

I don't think that's why they don't add such options.
Electrum (as one of the best and most popular wallets) allow users to double-spend a transaction to themselves. This feature can be used for bad purposes.
As stated in previous posts by others, I think wallets don't add such features because they don't like to make their wallet complicated for newbies.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Electrum (as one of the best and most popular wallets) allow users to double-spend a transaction to themselves. This feature can be used for bad purposes.

But, it can also save someone. It's the way you look at it. Weight privacy and confirmation boosting and you can make your own conclusions of what is better. To me, there isn't one. Sometimes, I need privacy and some others I have to double-spend it, because the mempool got full and my transaction is stuck with low priority. As it's being said, there should be an option, but not complete abjuration.

As stated in previous posts by others, I think wallets don't add such features because they don't like to make their wallet complicated for newbies.

Wallets such as Wasabi and Electrum are already complicated if you compare them with Exodus. This complexity tops everything.

[hosseinimr93]

--------

But, it can also save someone. It's the way you look at it. Weight privacy and confirmation boosting and you can make your own conclusions of what is better.

You are 100% right. I myself have used both "Increase fee" and "Cancel (double-spend)" features many times. These options are really helpful and I didn't mean electrum shouldn't allow users to do so.
I was only saying that it's not true that wallets don't have options mentioned by o_e_l_e_o in this post, because they don't want people to be able to change the outputs and use the feature for scamming others. If that was the reason of not adding such options, electrum wouldn't allow users to cancel (double-spend to themselves) transactions at all.

[pooya87]

Wallets such as Wasabi and Electrum are already complicated if you compare them with Exodus. This complexity tops everything.

I don't use Wasabi but Electrum is the simplest wallet that exists while being feature rich for advanced users. It starts getting complicated when you start accessing those "advanced" features such as setting/changing the fee, paying multiple addresses, coin control, LN,... otherwise it is just paste address and enter amount and click send.
BTW a closed source wallet like Exodus doesn't top anything.

[PrimeNumber7]

I don't think many (any) wallet devs want to implement what you describe because it would allow users to double-spend transactions in a way that would involve the recipient not receiving the original amount of coin as was in the original transaction.

I don't think that's why they don't add such options.
Electrum (as one of the best and most popular wallets) allow users to double-spend a transaction to themselves. This feature can be used for bad purposes.

How can electrum be used to easily create a double spend transaction? I am not aware of this being possible unless both transactions are created prior to one being broadcast.

[nc50lc]

-snip-
Electrum (as one of the best and most popular wallets) allow users to double-spend a transaction to themselves. This feature can be used for bad purposes.

How can electrum be used to easily create a double spend transaction? I am not aware of this being possible unless both transactions are created prior to one being broadcast.

Electrum v4.0.4 [Oct. 15, 2020] has a "Cancel (double-spend)" option in the right-click menu of an RBF flagged transaction.
That's basically the same as "increase fee" but instead of sending to the same output(s), the wallet will send it back to the owner's wallet.

[o_e_l_e_o]

While this is technically feasible according to consensus rules, however, I don't think many (any) wallet devs want to implement what you describe because it would allow users to double-spend transactions in a way that would involve the recipient not receiving the original amount of coin as was in the original transaction. I think most devs do not want to be involved in helping users conduct that kind of activity.

But that is exactly what RBF allows as per the implementation of BIP 125. Wallet devs aren't encouraging any kind of activity - they are simply implementing agreed upon features. No one should be accepting zero confirmation transactions if they are RBF enabled anyway.

Having an unused output of exactly the amount you'd contribute to the fee is quite unrealistic IMO. At least not if you consolidate and/or mix UTXO's regularly (which you should).

Then pull a 0.001 BTC chip from ChipMixer. Sure, it's an expensive fee, but if you are using RBF it's probably because the mempool is full and whatever situation you have found yourself demands it. Spending 0.001 BTC to save 1.5 BTC from being stolen as in OP's case is a tiny price to pay.

My point is there are too many situations to consider where someone might be able to use RBF privately, or be happy to sacrifice some privacy to be able to use RBF. Putting a blanket ban on it for all users is counterproductive.