[bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT
David A. Harding
dave at dtrt.org
Tue Dec 11 17:47:24 UTC 2018
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:36:59AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> I don't believe that the default RBF policy works that way. My
> understanding is that current policy requires an absolute fee increase (by
> an amount related to incrementalrelayfee).
Indeed, you are correct (BIP125 rule 4).
Thanks for the correction,
 For the curious, the relevant code from master's validation.cpp:
// Finally in addition to paying more fees than the conflicts the
// new transaction must pay for its own bandwidth.
CAmount nDeltaFees = nModifiedFees - nConflictingFees;
if (nDeltaFees < ::incrementalRelayFee.GetFee(nSize))
return state.DoS(0, false,
REJECT_INSUFFICIENTFEE, "insufficient fee", false,
strprintf("rejecting replacement %s, not enough additional fees to relay; %s < %s",
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the bitcoin-dev