Full RBF

[brainless]

if i am not wrong, first need cancel transaction, then apply new transaction with new higher fee ?

[1714235767]

1714235767

[o_e_l_e_o]

if i am not wrong, first need cancel transaction, then apply new transaction with new higher fee ?

There is no need to "cancel" a transaction first, and indeed, there is no such thing as cancelling a transaction. All you are doing when you cancel a transaction via RBF is using RBF to replace the transaction with another one which sends the funds back to yourself. If you are then going to send those funds back out with a higher fee, then there is no need to send them back to yourself first. You can just directly replace the existing transaction with your new one.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In case anyone was unaware, mempool.space have implemented an RBF tracker which also tracks all full RBF replacements. You can find a ticker on the landing page, or the full view here: https://mempool.space/rbf

I'm also noticing a lot more full RBF replacements, as well as more mining pools including them, such as AntPool, F2Pool, and Binance pool.

You can read the discussion regarding this change here: https://github.com/mempool/mempool/pull/3867

[Synchronice]

The TL;DR for anyone out of the loop is to implement a new setting for nodes, so that the node treats all unconfirmed transactions in its mempool as RBF enabled, regardless of whether or not that transactions signals for RBF. The default behavior (for now) will be to have this setting disabled, so the current opt-in RBF rules will apply, but nodes will be free to enable this setting and switch from opt-in RBF to full RBF if they choose.

If my transaction doesn't signals for RBF but nodes automatically convert it into RBF enabled transaction, how will I be able to use the RBF option? I mean, let's say that my wallet doesn't support RBF but as I understood, nodes mark all of them as RBF enabled. If my wallet doesn't support RBF, there will be no option for me in software to increase the transaction fee. What's the point there? Or did I misunderstood it?

However, it also essentially stops any business from accepting zero confirmation transactions for small values, since all transactions (even those opted out of RBF) could potentially be replaced using RBF.

From my personal experience, every service that accepts transactions with 0 confirmation expects from you to pay high fee, enough to get confirmed in few upcoming blocks. If the fee was not enough, I always had to wait at least for one confirmation. Or in case of casinos, I was able to play with deposited amount despite the fact that it had 0 confirmation but I was unable to withdraw them at least till 1, 3 or 6 confirmation.
So, I think that won't be a huge problem if companies aren't able to accept zero confirmation transactions. At least when I have used that option, that was always formal, I don't really know if your experience is different. You have probably used more bitcoin services than me.

Here's the way I see it:

Let's say Alice does not enable full RBF, but Bob does. Carol broadcasts a transaction which is not opted in to RBF, which propagates to both Alice and Bob's mempools. Carol then broadcasts a replacement transaction. Alice, running the old rules, rejects the replacement transaction as a double spend, while Bob, running the new rules, accepts the replacement transaction as an RBF. Alice therefore has the old transaction in her mempool, while Bob has the new transaction in his.

At some point, one of these two transactions will be mined in to a block. Which one is mined will depend on a variety of factors, such as how many nodes are running the old or the new rules, how much hashrate sees the original transaction or the new transaction, the fees both transactions pay, which miner is lucky enough to find the next block, and so on.

Once the next block is found, then all nodes, regardless of which rule set they are using, will be able to validate the transaction which was included in the block, and if necessary, remove the other one from their mempools. If the original transaction confirms, full RBF enabled nodes like Bob will eject the replacement, and if the replacement confirms, full RBF disabled nodes like Alice will eject the original.

That sounds very logical! But kinda confusing for the nodes, wonder if it causes some kind of danger on network, something similar to double-spending.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If my wallet doesn't support RBF, there will be no option for me in software to increase the transaction fee. What's the point there?

The point there is to use a better wallet. Network rules are not bound or limited by third party developers failing to implement basic functions in their software. Being able to replace an unconfirmed transaction is an increasingly basic function of bitcoin. If your wallet does not allow you to do that, then find a better wallet which does.

That sounds very logical! But kinda confusing for the nodes, wonder if it causes some kind of danger on network, something similar to double-spending.

The only danger is if you accept zero confirmation transactions. However, these have never really been safe to accept in the first place, but some businesses accepted that risk for the convenience they brought. Full RBF makes no difference to confirmed transactions.

[Synchronice]

If my wallet doesn't support RBF, there will be no option for me in software to increase the transaction fee. What's the point there?

The point there is to use a better wallet. Network rules are not bound or limited by third party developers failing to implement basic functions in their software. Being able to replace an unconfirmed transaction is an increasingly basic function of bitcoin. If your wallet does not allow you to do that, then find a better wallet which does.

If my wallet allows RBF and still it depends on me to use that option, then what's the point of full RBF over opt-in RBF?
Let's imagine we already have full RBF:
I download wallet X, it doesn't support RBF, so despite the fact that my transaction is marked as RBF enabled, I'm unable to use that option because of my bad wallet.
I download electrum, enable RBF and sign a RBF enabled transaction, I could use RBF yesterday and I can use it today, doesn't matter whether it's an opt-in option or not. If I want to use it, I can use it. It can probably benefit people who use Electrum but forgot to enable RBF but how common is that?

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

On an individual level for simple transactions, then no, there is no difference for you between opt in or full RBF.

The main reasons for full RBF are explained in one of the mailing list posts I linked in the OP: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019074.html

In short, full RBF eliminates a number of DoS attacks against multi-party transactions such as Lightning channels and coinjoins, therefore allowing further development of these technologies.

[Airfin Same]

The point there is to use a better wallet. Network rules are not bound or limited by third party developers failing to implement basic functions in their software. Being able to replace an unconfirmed transaction is an increasingly basic function of bitcoin. If your wallet does not allow you to do that, then find a better wallet which does.

which wallet you recommend that support RBF, i want to send a transaction and make it final with RBF disabled
how to do this?
even if the node is full RBF is this possible

in other word how to make a transaction final without any possibility to double spend it

[BlackHatCoiner]

which wallet you recommend that support RBF

Unfortunately, that user is no longer with us. You can stick with any reputable wallet nowadays, and it supports double-spending with RBF.

i want to send a transaction and make it final with RBF disabled

That is not possible, and it never was in the first place. When your transaction has 0 confirmations, it is by the protocol not final. If you're referring to the mempool policy rule before full RBF, then it is neither possible. Almost all nodes will have upgraded to Full RBF by now, and even if full RBF nodes are a tiny minority, it's enough to reach the mempool of the mining pools.

[Airfin Same]

i want to send a transaction and make it final with RBF disabled

That is not possible, and it never was in the first place. When your transaction has 0 confirmations, it is by the protocol not final. If you're referring to the mempool policy rule before full RBF, then it is neither possible. Almost all nodes will have upgraded to Full RBF by now, and even if full RBF nodes are a tiny minority, it's enough to reach the mempool of the mining pools.

thank you for answering

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec
by putting the higher fee on the time

by saying final i meant with no possibility to rteplace it with another one

[BlackHatCoiner]

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec

The fastest that you can have it confirmed is in the next block, which can happen anytime. From the next second now to even two hours after. You will have to select the highest fee, though, which as we speak is 43 sat/vb (and use RBF in case that's become less than the highest).

by saying final i meant with no possibility to rteplace it with another one

Only if it's confirmed. If it's 0-conf, it can be double-spent with another 0-conf.

[Charles-Tim]

which wallet you recommend that support RBF

These are some wallets that support opt-in RBF: Bitcoin open source wallets that support replace-by-fee (RBF)

If you are not a full node runner, I will advice you to use any of the wallets on the above link.

I have used Electrum, Sparrow and Bluewallet. They are reputed and open source.

If you are a full node runner, you can enable full RBF. Although, SPV wallets that look for nodes that support it should be able to double spend unconfirmed transaction with high fee also even if the transaction does not support opt-in RBF.

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec
by putting the higher fee on the time

What BlackHatCoiner meant is that a transaction that is not confirmed can be double spent.

A transaction can be confirmed within some seconds and it may take some minutes. It depends on the time you make the transaction, the fee rate that you used and the time the next block is mined.

[hosseinimr93]

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec

As mentioned by BlackHatCoiner above, if the fee you pay for your transaction is high enough, it will be confirmed in the next block and I just want to add that blocks are mined at the rate of 1 per ~ 10 minutes on average.

[Airfin Same]

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec

As mentioned by BlackHatCoiner above, if the fee you pay for your transaction is high enough, it will be confirmed in the next block and I just want to add that blocks are mined at the rate of 1 per ~ 10 minutes on average.

its very clear answer i get it

i see https://mempool.space/
next block found in 13min sometimes 19min and some times in 2min the next block mined
 

higher fee +56 sat/vB


sometimes things confused me like in here block time is ~10min right?

[nc50lc]

sometimes things confused me like in here block time is ~10min right?

It's "average" block time and not an absolute value.

That is based from the adjusted "difficulty" from the previous 2016 blocks (about 2 weeks).
The harder the difficulty, the harder it is to produce a hash lower than the "target".
So since mining is basically generation of pseudo-random hash, we will never know if miners get lucky enough to generate a valid hash in the next second or unlucky to generate it after an hour.

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec
by putting the higher fee on the time

by saying final i meant with no possibility to rteplace it with another one

Is there any particular reason for this?
Because in normal circumstances, this shouldn't be an issue if you're the sole owner of the private key.
Solved puzzle 66 or something?

[Airfin Same]

sometimes things confused me like in here block time is ~10min right?

It's "average" block time and not an absolute value.

That is based from the adjusted "difficulty" from the previous 2016 blocks (about 2 weeks).
The harder the difficulty, the harder it is to produce a hash lower than the "target".
So since mining is basically generation of pseudo-random hash, we will never know if miners get lucky enough to generate a valid hash in the next second or unlucky to generate it after an hour.

is it possible to have a transaction confirmed in few sec
by putting the higher fee on the time

by saying final i meant with no possibility to rteplace it with another one

Is there any particular reason for this?
Because in normal circumstances, this shouldn't be an issue if you're the sole owner of the private key.
Solved puzzle 66 or something?

its about this topic bitcoin puzzle
i saw people talk about things didn't know or hear about beore
like this double spend and RBF
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.0;topicseen

[nc50lc]

Is there any particular reason for this?
Because in normal circumstances, this shouldn't be an issue if you're the sole owner of the private key.
Solved puzzle 66 or something?

its about this topic bitcoin puzzle
i saw people talk about things didn't know or hear about beore

Okay, as I thought.

There are actually a few topics here that already addresses that concern and the consensus is:
"it's not currently possible without the help of a trusted cooperating mining pool/solo miner".

Here's to point you to one of the threads: solve key 66 67 Puzzle how to avoid double spends the tx?
AFAIK, there are other discussions that aren't in the first page or posted as a reply to other topics.

[LoyceV]

There are actually a few topics here that already addresses that concern and the consensus is:
"it's not currently possible without the help of a trusted cooperating mining pool/solo miner".

What would be the odds of a mining pool trying to replace the mined block and take the puzzle money for themselves? Normally, it's not worth the risk. But if the puzzle prize is large compared to the block reward, that balance may change.