RBF is just ctrl z.
I don't want this to be a part of bitcoin. It just make a clusterfuck of transactions in a market where fees are volatile.
I feel that RBF has been politicized...
Right now, the RBF defined behavior is possible to happen, but it is not defined so you cant rely on this behavior. RBF is only enabled if a non-permanent sequenceid is used.
Granted changing the sequenceid so it is basically an RBF field is an overreach and how any vin with RBF enabled makes the entire tx RBF enabled creates inter-vin behavior which is arguably not good design, but it is unclear what it would mean for a tx to be partly RBF. Maybe for SIGHASH_SINGLE the RBF would be isolated to the corresponding output, so if the RBF behaves in a SIGHASH_ALL manner even for other sighash modes, then it is clearly wrong.
So there are some technical issues with RBF, but the big argument I see used all the time is that zeroconf is broken with RBF. So far NOBODY has explained to me why anybody would combine zeroconf (the weakest security mode) with RBF (using a non permanent sequenceid)
I would think that it is very, very, very bad design of zeroconf implementation to use non-permanent sequenceids. The only thing zeroconf seems to have in common with RBF is that they are both oriented around offchain things, and maybe that is why they got lumped into the same thing? Until I see a valid explanation of why it makes sense to do RBF zeroconf, then saying RBF breaks zeroconf is like saying RBF breaks a really poorly designed zeroconf system, which was already broken.
Use PERMANENT sequenceds if you are using zeroconf. I think 99.9%+ of transactions use permanent sequenceids. Most use of RBF enabled is for offchain, and defining its behavior would allow broadcasting transactions that will be updated without worry the wrong one will get confirmed, ie micropayment channels using mempool instead of private servers. But this does increase the load on the relay servers. So maybe the economic point of allowing micropayment channels without any private servers is the goal?
So there are several valid reasons that RBF is not right, but "it makes any bitcoin tx reversible", a hysterical statement on the level of "anything that is not 1MB block is wrong"
I would prefer an elevated level of dialogue and understand that the deeper technical issues about RBF are not easy to understand, especially as to how they interact with sighash modes and offchain protocols. I await correction to my technical analysis, but please dont quote me articles that dont have any technical analysis as proof.
James
