Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty

From: 0xB10C <b10c@b10c•me>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:04:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f146ca66-a611-f129-ae11-6907a7333d10@b10c.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1316 bytes --]

Hi AJ and list,

> This seems to be pretty good evidence that we currently don't have any
> significant hashrate mining with fullrbf policies (<0.5% if there was a
> high fee replacement available prior to every block having been mined),
> despite the bounty having been collected.

For further monitoring, I've set-up a mempoolfullrbf=1 node and are
logging replacement events with [0]. I filter the full-RBF replacements
and list the replaced and replacement transactions here:

https://fullrbf.mempool.observer/

This also tries to find out if either the replaced or replacement
transaction has been included in a block upon loading the site. The
yellow mined-in-badges link to the block on miningpool.observer to a)
show the mining pool (if known) and b) see if the (mempoolfullrbf=0)
miningpool-observer node thinks this transaction is extra / conflicts
with the mined transaction. This should be the case if a full-RBF
replacement transaction is mined.

Over the last few days, I has mostly seen OP_RETURN transactions
(presumably mostly by OpenTimestamps; but I haven't checked closely) and
a few other non-OP_RETURN transactions. None of the replacement
transactions have been mined yet.

[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#issuecomment-1333832906

Best,
0xB10C

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 6989 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]