{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:Chun Wang \u003c1240902 \u003cat\u003e gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\n\u003e Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks.\n\nFSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF.\n\nWe think Full RBF is better for a number of reasons:\n\n-user experience\n-efficiency\n-cost\n-code complexity\n\nWe think FSS RBF is  great progress but ultimately less efficient and more \ncomplicated to keep alive something that never worked properly.\n\nAnd why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the \noption paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward.\n\nA lot of users don't have multiple UTXO handy.\n\nFull RBF is the best, second FSS RBF and we'd be looking into supporting \nthem both separately so that miners and users can pick whichever they \nprefer.\n\nIf users only had one UTXO it makes sense to use Full RBF since there are no \nother options.\n\nDisclosure: GreenAddress always believed zero conf transactions are not \nsecure and that miners have the incentive to run FBF; this bias doesn't make \nthe above less true"}