Quote from: ranochigo on Today at 02:52:43 PM

Quote from: fillippone on Today at 02:44:37 PM

What is the difference in the two transactions?

I linked it with my post.

You were too fast for me!

Quote from: ranochigo on Today at 02:52:43 PM

Quote from: fillippone on Today at 02:44:37 PM

The fees? (after an initial claim of an RBF transaction being bumped up, it appears the was not the case)

One of the transaction actually do have a higher fee and that makes me think that the transaction that was on the losing block was actually the RBF'ed transaction, since the lower fee transaction actually signals optin RBF.

Following the explorer links, looks like the transaction with with higher fees, and that was NOT included was submitted BEFORE the transaction that was included in the block, with a lower fee. Looks like the sender passed the lower fee transaction directly to the miner, so that to be included in the block. Otherwise the mempool manager of teh miner would have included this later, lower fee bearing transaction on their block.

Quote from: ranochigo on Today at 02:52:43 PM

Quote from: fillippone on Today at 02:44:37 PM

I guess this was intentional.

No. Both pools mined the transactions within seconds apart, and it's likely that SlushPool didn't manage to replace the existing transaction with the RBF transaction that spends a higher fee. Unless the attacker owns either of the pool, it's highly unlikely that it was planned at all.

As I said, the mined fee has a lower, not higher fee. So this is very strange to me.