mempool – Is “inherited” replace-by-fee signaling applied as described in BIP125?

0
69


From Bip125:

Specific signaling: A transaction is taken into account to have opted in to
permitting alternative of itself if any of its inputs have an nSequence
quantity lower than (0xffffffff – 1).

Inherited signaling: Transactions
that do not explicitly sign replaceability are replaceable underneath this
coverage for so long as any considered one of their ancestors indicators
replaceability and stays unconfirmed.

Nevertheless, it seems to be to me like solely “specific” signaling is examined. See this a part of the BIP125 pull request that was merged into Bitcoin Core:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6871/recordsdata#diff-7ec3c68a81efff79b6ca22ac1f1eabbaR841

It’s extremely clear that incoming TXs are checked for conflicts (double spends) and if the conflicting TX doesn’t explicitly sign RBF with its enter sequence, then the brand new TX is rejected.

If implicit signaling have been applied, I might count on to see a recursive examine for the conflicting TX’s mempool ancestors, or examine some form of flag saved with the TX metadata.

OR, is the textual content of the BIP simply describing what occurs to descendants of changed transactions, in that they’re evicted when their explicitly-signaling ancestor is changed.



Supply hyperlink

Leave a reply