RBF just got merged into Bitcoin Core

[stan.distortion]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... coin_core/

Wtf, is this for real? This effects way more existing users than the blocksize issue yet its been implemented with little discussion? This is really screwed up, imo main "feature" of this is it allows bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks and is being sold as something to protect noobs from irreversible transactions. This raises serious questions here over who has commit access, I'm really not sure about Peter Todds motives with this and fwiw, the BCT trolls that where killing discussion on the blocksize debate seem to be burying discussion on RBF.

[bitkilo]

It does look like its for real, might not be so bad but i haven't looked into in much yet.

Anything major that's implmented into core should always go to some sort of vote.
As far as i am aware a consensus only applies to hard forks but what other devs agreed on this one, Todd couldn't just wake up and say hey i think i'll add something into core today.

[kingscrown]

people say to use different version than original core from now on

[bitkilo]

people say to use different version than original core from now on

Who says this?
And what other "version" do they suggest to use?

[ronnieb]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... coin_core/

Wtf, is this for real? This effects way more existing users than the blocksize issue yet its been implemented with little discussion? This is really screwed up, imo main "feature" of this is it allows bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks and is being sold as something to protect noobs from irreversible transactions. This raises serious questions here over who has commit access, I'm really not sure about Peter Todds motives with this and fwiw, the BCT trolls that where killing discussion on the blocksize debate seem to be burying discussion on RBF.

Would you be willing to give us a TL;DR and a play by play of RBF and why it's bad or good? I still haven't looked at it, but I'm not running 100% core. I run XT also. Would be nice to see a little bit more on the concept.

[kingscrown]

people say to use different version than original core from now on

Who says this?
And what other "version" do they suggest to use?

It was in /r/BTC yesterday, a really big topic with many replies. ie https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3 ... _must_not/

[bitkilo]

people say to use different version than original core from now on

Who says this?
And what other "version" do they suggest to use?

It was in /r/BTC yesterday, a really big topic with many replies. ie https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3 ... _must_not/

I don't follow reddit so missed that but it basically say if you don't agree with RBF then you can run XT.
Looks like a XT push to me.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

RBF will become part of Bitcoin Core Verson 0.12 released in January or February 2016. It is not part of any release yet.

[kingscrown]

RBF will become part of Bitcoin Core Verson 0.12 released in January or February 2016. It is not part of any release yet.

still better go for NXT version

[achow101]

This happened a while ago.

It does look like its for real, might not be so bad but i haven't looked into in much yet.

Anything major that's implmented into core should always go to some sort of vote.
As far as i am aware a consensus only applies to hard forks but what other devs agreed on this one, Todd couldn't just wake up and say hey i think i'll add something into core today.

There was a lot of discussion about it and agreement among the devs. See the PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

For a good explanation of RBF see this article by Mike Hearn. That article was written over 9 months ago so a more up to date article can be found here. Neither is really free of bias so I also suggest you take a look at this list on reddit.

[BitcoinXio]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... coin_core/

Wtf, is this for real? This effects way more existing users than the blocksize issue yet its been implemented with little discussion? This is really screwed up, imo main "feature" of this is it allows bidding wars to be included in bloated blocks and is being sold as something to protect noobs from irreversible transactions. This raises serious questions here over who has commit access, I'm really not sure about Peter Todds motives with this and fwiw, the BCT trolls that where killing discussion on the blocksize debate seem to be burying discussion on RBF.

Would you be willing to give us a TL;DR and a play by play of RBF and why it's bad or good? I still haven't looked at it, but I'm not running 100% core. I run XT also. Would be nice to see a little bit more on the concept.

Replace By Fee (RBF) allows replacing an already broadcasted transaction by broadcasting another transaction with a higher fee. This only works on transactions before they are validated by miners (zero confirmations). Once there are confirmations you can no longer RBF. This essentially breaks zero confirms because now people will be able to RBF zero confirm transactions with a higher fee, which is why it's causing so much controversy. Many many people enjoy the speed of zero confirms for low value transactions.

There are other pieces to this new RBF function like Opt-In RBF which complicates it and honestly I haven't read much further into it from here. It gets strange with different nuances like if the sender opts in or something the receiver can't opt out (I think, again haven't read into this part too much).

Anyways it seems on the surface to be unnecessary and causing undue harm when zero confirms have been working fine this entire time. I'm not sure what the pro side has to say about it.