From 1f6fc5761f62df3572c0cf24c6d3d92cf9d8ff19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: clenser Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:21:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Edited ch09_fees.adoc with Atlas code editor --- ch09_fees.adoc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ch09_fees.adoc b/ch09_fees.adoc index e3b388d8..67808d16 100644 --- a/ch09_fees.adoc +++ b/ch09_fees.adoc @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ problem. [[transaction_pinning]] === Transaction Pinning -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 <>. 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]. [[cpfp_carve_out]]