I dont think there was anything technical with the implementation and as far as I can tell this is well developed and ready.

The reasons I can find for not being adopted are listed here - https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/ under - Why not First-seen-safe Replace-by-fee 

 Those reasons do not seem pertinent here - given OptinRBF already exists as an option and the added benefit of continuing to be able to support 0-conf.

________________________________

Daniel Lipshitz
Phone: +44 113 4900 117
Skype: daniellipshitz123
Twitter: @daniellipshitz


On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:59 AM John Carvalho <john@synonym.to> wrote:
Why wasn't this solution put in place back then? Are there problems with the design?

While I still think there are unhealthy side-effects of Full-RBF (like more doublespending at unknowing merchants, after years of FSS protection) I think discussion of this FSS-RBF feature is worth considering.

--
John Carvalho

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com> wrote:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, apologies for not being aware of it.

First-seen-safe replace-by-fee as detailed here https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html  by Peter Todd  seems to be a very suitable option and route which balances FullRBF while retaining  the significant 0-conf use case.

This would seem like a good way forward.



________________________________



On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:20 AM Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org> wrote:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008248.html