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