rich1.0npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98https://nostr.ae/npub1q96r67z2pgf6zg3t7zkxd77fdgzz8euhwazmkdh4adrlrlt40unqnw5u98njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19 📝 Original message:Chun Wang <1240902 <at> gmail.com> writes: > Hello. We recognize the problem. We will switch to FSS RBF soon. Thanks. FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF. We think Full RBF is better for a number of reasons: -user experience -efficiency -cost -code complexity We think FSS RBF is great progress but ultimately less efficient and more complicated to keep alive something that never worked properly. And why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the option paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward. A lot of users don't have multiple UTXO handy. Full RBF is the best, second FSS RBF and we'd be looking into supporting them both separately so that miners and users can pick whichever they prefer. If users only had one UTXO it makes sense to use Full RBF since there are no other options. Disclosure: GreenAddress always believed zero conf transactions are not secure and that miners have the incentive to run FBF; this bias doesn't make the above less true