![electrum wallet fees electrum wallet fees](https://miro.medium.com/max/6048/1*8fc6naeZNc4WVnUmPHBmJw.jpeg)
What is it used for?ĭuring the period when transactions are waiting to be confirmed, some wallets would like to be able to update those transactions in order to increase their fee (which may help them get confirmed faster), compress multiple transactions into one, create background coinjoins (to improve privacy), or to perform a number of other useful actions. Opt-in RBF solves this issue by requiring transaction replacements to pay a higher fee. Transaction replacement was introduced by Satoshi in the first release of the Bitcoin software, but later removed due to denial-of-service problems. Opt-in Replace-by-Fee (RBF) allows transactions to be flagged as replaceable until they are confirmed in a block. What is “Child pays for parent” (CPFP)?.Why not First-seen-safe Replace-by-fee (FSS-RBF).Can this be used to double spend against unprepared (old) wallets? Will all wallets have to update?.
![electrum wallet fees electrum wallet fees](https://bitcoinelectrum.com/files/2017/09/electrum-receive.png)
I heard Opt-in RBF was added with little or no discussion.Why implement ‘opt-in’ and not just let miners replace any transaction?.What if I think that RBF is just awful?.Does opt-in RBF increase the risk that “lazy” transaction processors will get scammed?.Would a wallet need to stay online to issue replacements with higher fees?.Is opt-in RBF only useful for adjusting fees?.When and how does this change get activated?.Was the opt-in RBF pull request controversial?.Who invented unconfirmed transaction replacement? Does it go against the “vision” of Bitcoin?.Why aren’t unconfirmed transactions safe?.Are opt-in transactions themselves more useful tools to dedicated fraudsters, assuming people accept them without confirmation?.Does opt-in RBF make fraudulent spends significantly more successful?.Does the opt-in RBF implementation change the likelihood that a “non-RBF” transaction can be double-spent?.