Antoine Riard

@naumenkogs I believe this needs rebase. I'll review back soon once current open comments are addressed.

Concept ACK > Changing BIP125 to match what we have. This doesn't make sense as it would be a significant change to a BIP years after it was finalized and...

> Isn't this bad for privacy? I think a mass-spying node could automatically connect to a node and broadcast an opt-out transaction then a higher-fee replacement one to detect if...

@1440000bytes > Service flag makes it easier to make a list of nodes with full RBF policy. These nodes could be banned or this information can be used in different...

@mzumsande For more perspective, I would like to recall that seeing full-rbf more deployed on the p2p network makes multi-party funded transactions more robust, at the price of zero-conf transactions...

Sorry for the delay, updated at 3622534 with few changes. From my understanding, there are few conceptual viewpoints expressed about this change. One is to argue that releasing a full-rbf...

Updating the PR and answering comments soon.

@luke-jr > This doesn't make sense. The current de facto "position" is anti-RBF. Making it an option disabled by default is the very minimum to be neutral. In a decentralized...

Updated at 36225348 with comments addressed. Thanks for the reviews.

Updated at 35d33402 ``` ./net.h: In member function ‘bool CNode::ExpectServicesFromConn() const’: ./net.h:471:34: error: ‘FULLRBF’ is not a member of ‘ConnectionType’; did you mean ‘FULL_RBF’? 471 | case ConnectionType::FULLRBF: | ^~~~~~~...