Slight clarification for replacement implementation #488

pull instagibbs wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from instagibbs:rbffixup changing 1 files +3 −3
  1. instagibbs commented at 4:27 PM on January 13, 2017: member

    Grouped the two sections explaining the fee evaluation, then removed a redundant clause in the middle of the latter paragraph that confused the meaning. @harding @petertodd ping authors

  2. in bip-0125.mediawiki:None in 6e7e2ea590 outdated
      50 | @@ -51,11 +51,11 @@ transaction) that spends one or more of the same inputs if,
      51 |  
      52 |  # The original transactions signal replaceability explicitly or through inheritance as described in the above Summary section.
      53 |  
      54 | -# The replacement transaction pays an absolute higher fee than the sum paid by the original transactions.
      55 | -
      56 |  # The replacement transaction does not contain any new unconfirmed inputs that did not previously appear in the mempool. (Unconfirmed inputs are inputs spending outputs from currently unconfirmed transactions.)
      57 |  
      58 | -# The replacement transaction must pay for its own bandwidth in addition to the amount paid by the original transactions at or above the rate set by the node's minimum relay fee setting.  For example, if the minimum relay fee is 1 satoshi/byte and the replacement transaction is 500 bytes total, then the replacement must pay a fee at least 500 satoshis higher than the sum of the originals.
      59 | +# The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee at least the sum paid by the original transactions.
    


    harding commented at 5:27 PM on January 13, 2017:

    "an absolute fee at least" -> "an absolute fee of at least" (sounds better to my ears, but either way seems fine)


    instagibbs commented at 5:32 PM on January 13, 2017:

    you're right, updating

  3. harding approved
  4. harding commented at 5:30 PM on January 13, 2017: contributor

    One nano-nit that can be optionally fixed or left as-is as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise LGTM. Thanks!

  5. Slight clarification for replacement implementation cedf553184
  6. instagibbs force-pushed on Jan 13, 2017
  7. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jan 13, 2017
  8. jonathancross commented at 7:33 PM on November 6, 2017: contributor

    @luke-jr This is ready to merge.

  9. luke-jr merged this on Nov 6, 2017
  10. luke-jr closed this on Nov 6, 2017


github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bips. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-14 11:10 UTC

This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me