[0.12] Rename permitrbf to mempoolreplacement and provide minimal string-list forward compatibility #7440

1. 
   luke-jr commented at 1:35 AM on January 29, 2016: member

   Backport of #7431

2. Rename permitrbf to replacebyfee

   "permit" is currently used to configure transaction filtering, whereas replacement is more to do with the memory pool state than the transaction itself.

   1205f87d36
3. Accept replacebyfee=opt-in for turning on opt-in RBF

   Basic forward-compatibility with more flexible parameters like fss

   e8d19ab79f
4. Simplify check for replacebyfee=opt-in 5f456a6546
5. release-notes: Update for permitrbf->replacebyfee rename b2287a7e01
6. in doc/release-notes.md:None in b2287a7e01 outdated

    143 | @@ -144,13 +144,13 @@ accepted when it pays sufficient fee, as described in [BIP 125]
    144 |  (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki).
    145 |  
    146 |  Transaction replacement can be disabled with a new command line option,
    147 | -`-permitrbf=false`.  Transactions signaling replacement under BIP125 will still
   

   ---

   ---

   

   luke-jr commented at 1:35 AM on January 29, 2016:

   @sdaftuar Note that "false" and "true" are invalid for boolean options!

7. laanwj added this to the milestone 0.12.0 on Feb 1, 2016
8. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 1:40 PM on February 1, 2016: member

   @luke-jr What about doing the same like 89d113e02a83617b4e971c160d47551476dacc71?

9. Rename replacebyfee=opt-in to mempoolreplacement=fee 4ad418bc9b
10. release-notes: Update for replacebyfee->mempoolreplacement rename af9f564267
11. luke-jr renamed this:
    [0.12] Rename permitrbf to replacebyfee and provide minimal string-list forward compatibility
    [0.12] Rename permitrbf to mempoolreplacement and provide minimal string-list forward compatibility
    on Feb 1, 2016
12. 
    sandakersmann commented at 1:11 AM on February 3, 2016: contributor

    I think replacebyfee gives a better description of what this is.

13. 
    luke-jr commented at 2:47 AM on February 3, 2016: member

    @sandakersmann The idea is that future or derivative versions may support more replacement logic than merely by fee. The original replacement feature was planned to simply go based on sequence number, but that had DoS risks - RBF solves that, but it's not impossible someone may come up with an alternative solution. Anyway, please use #7431 for comments on the change itself - this PR is merely a backport.

14. laanwj merged this on Feb 3, 2016
15. laanwj closed this on Feb 3, 2016

    ---

16. laanwj referenced this in commit c76bfff11e on Feb 3, 2016
17. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors

luke-jrMarcoFalkesandakersmann

Milestone
0.12.0