BTC Payment Info

[StrongCore]

What is that mean?



Opt-in RBF
https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

[Vaypah]

I have never seen that before... I read that webpage and still didn't really understand what it was about.

[Fliest_aladdin]

"Replace-by-fee means that nodes will now accept and relay double spends for certain transactions, and miners will mine these transactions into blocks.
The version that has been merged is opt-in, so when you make a transaction, you can flag it saying "I want to be able to double spend this transaction". Merchants will be able to see this, so will know not to trust your transaction until it has confirmations.
To fully understand RBF, you must realize that zero-confirmation (0-conf) transactions in Bitcoin are never guaranteed to be safe. The only reason they are moderately safe to accept is that most nodes will not relay a double spend of a transaction they have already seen. Many companies like BitPay and Coinbase have technology to check if a transaction has been seen by most of the Bitcoin network, then accept it before it has any confirmations. However, Bitcoin's primary mechanism for guaranteeing that a transaction will not be double spent is mining them into the blockchain, so if you want to be sure a transaction is safe you should always wait for at least a few confirmations.
You should also know that accepting double spends is purely rational behavior for miners. If they see a transaction that double spends an existing, unconfirmed transaction, and has a higher miner fee, then it is in their best interest to accept the new transaction with a higher fee. This means that miners are theoretically leaving money on the table.
There are two reasons that Peter Todd has been pushing RBF for quite a while:
1) Unconfirmed transactions are not technically safe to rely on, but some people do. We should break them for everyone so that people no longer rely on this behavior.
2) Sometimes people make a transaction and forget to add a fee, or add a fee that is too low. If the transaction is taking too long to confirm (for example during a Bitcoin stress test, or period of high volume), it would be nice if people could replace this transaction with a new one with a higher fee.
The second point is actually a decent use case. Todd had an alternative proposal called "first seen safe" replace-by-fee, which would allow you to increase the fee on an existing transaction, but not change the recipient address, meaning that it does not allow you to double spend merchants. However, this option was not merged into Bitcoin core. The version that was merged allows you to replace your transaction with a completely different one sending money to different people (or back to yourself)."

[StrongCore]

"Replace-by-fee means that nodes will now accept and relay double spends for certain transactions, and miners will mine these transactions into blocks.
The version that has been merged is opt-in, so when you make a transaction, you can flag it saying "I want to be able to double spend this transaction". Merchants will be able to see this, so will know not to trust your transaction until it has confirmations.
To fully understand RBF, you must realize that zero-confirmation (0-conf) transactions in Bitcoin are never guaranteed to be safe. The only reason they are moderately safe to accept is that most nodes will not relay a double spend of a transaction they have already seen. Many companies like BitPay and Coinbase have technology to check if a transaction has been seen by most of the Bitcoin network, then accept it before it has any confirmations. However, Bitcoin's primary mechanism for guaranteeing that a transaction will not be double spent is mining them into the blockchain, so if you want to be sure a transaction is safe you should always wait for at least a few confirmations.
You should also know that accepting double spends is purely rational behavior for miners. If they see a transaction that double spends an existing, unconfirmed transaction, and has a higher miner fee, then it is in their best interest to accept the new transaction with a higher fee. This means that miners are theoretically leaving money on the table.
There are two reasons that Peter Todd has been pushing RBF for quite a while:
1) Unconfirmed transactions are not technically safe to rely on, but some people do. We should break them for everyone so that people no longer rely on this behavior.
2) Sometimes people make a transaction and forget to add a fee, or add a fee that is too low. If the transaction is taking too long to confirm (for example during a Bitcoin stress test, or period of high volume), it would be nice if people could replace this transaction with a new one with a higher fee.
The second point is actually a decent use case. Todd had an alternative proposal called "first seen safe" replace-by-fee, which would allow you to increase the fee on an existing transaction, but not change the recipient address, meaning that it does not allow you to double spend merchants. However, this option was not merged into Bitcoin core. The version that was merged allows you to replace your transaction with a completely different one sending money to different people (or back to yourself)."

That's mean will take more fees from me?

[Fliest_aladdin]

That's mean will take more fees from me?

Potentially
, still doesn't make sens to me tho