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
CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>


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
>>
>