Peter Todd

> 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 attacks....

> So assuming that in those adversarial settings there exits a direct connection to a fullrbf miner Though this patch avoids the necessity of full-rbf miners identifying themselves, as well...

FYI I tried setting `MAX_FULLRBF_RELAY_CONNECTIONS = 4` on three of my nodes, and if that's all you do they don't reliably connect to more than one full-rbf node no matter...

> I think we should aim for gradual deployment of new policy rules, not only to experiment the robustness/privacy/performance of the changes themselves but also to enable gradual adaptions of...

Sure, give that a try. Though note that I'm currently working on rewriting all this in Rust. :)

@sdaftuar > bounded in size to at most 1000 vbytes, if the child of an unconfirmed (and therefore v3) parent This is insufficient to fix pinning in comparison to existing...

@ariard > however the dynamic N replace-by-feerate window might be a mess for miners mempools. Can you give a bit more detail on what challenges you think that'll pose?

@sdaftuar As you said, "Opening an issue for high-level discussion". Whether or not V3 achieves its goals is definitely a high level discussion that needs to be resolved here. I...

@sdaftuar > So I assume that means you don't believe that dropping the CPFP carveout rule should be a big deal either, is that a fair statement? No, that's not...

> @petertodd > > > Can you give a bit more detail on what challenges you think that'll pose? > > from my memory: "How this new replacement rule would...