Quote from: BrotherCreamy on Today at 02:42:59 AM

My 2c:

Full RBF is the only option that makes sense.

--snip--

Users expect determinism and reliability out of the Bitcoin network. There should be no features which rely on the goodwill of node operators.
This would be akin to building an extension to your stone fortress out of paddlepop sticks.

I get your point. But since Bitcoin Core have dominance in full node software, alternative full node implementation usually just follow default Bitcoin Core behavior and most node don't change default configuration (excluding directory location and memory usage), it's not surprising many Bitcoin user and even some company expect determinism/reliability.

Quote from: BrotherCreamy on Today at 02:42:59 AM

Miners ought to order transactions by fee revenue and nothing else, otherwise they are in the wrong industry.
If there are 50 pending blocks, and I submit a transaction with a higher sats/vb than the rest, rational miners should include my transaction first before all the others even though my transaction is the newest.

On practice it's slightly different though. For example,
1. Feature which let pool's miner include certain transaction.
2. Free and paid service by certain pool to "accelerate" Bitcoin transaction.
3. Intentional censorship by adhering to AML/OFEC. It's been done by Mara pool, although ended in failure.