Although both RBF and CPFP fee bumping work in the basic cases we
Although((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "transaction pinning", id="transaction-fee-bump-pin")))((("fee bumping", "transaction pinning", id="fee-bump-pin")))((("transaction pinning", id="transaction-pin")))((("RBF (replace by fee) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", id="rbf-pin")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", id="cpfp-pin"))) both RBF and CPFP fee bumping work in the basic cases we
described, there are rules related to both
methods that are designed to prevent denial-of-service attacks on miners
and relaying full nodes. An unfortunate side effect of those rules
@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ money from you.
Protocol developers have been working on mitigating problems with
transaction pinning for several years. One partial solution is
described in <<cpfp_carve_out>>. Several other solutions have been
proposed, and at least one solution is being actively developed as of
proposed, and at least one solution is being actively ((("transaction fees", "fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="transaction-fee-bump-pin")))((("fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="fee-bump-pin")))((("transaction pinning", startref="transaction-pin")))((("RBF (replace by fee) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="rbf-pin")))((("CPFP (child pays for parent) fee bumping", "transaction pinning", startref="cpfp-pin")))developed as of
this writing—https://oreil.ly/300dv[ephemeral anchors].