Quote from: Baskentliia on July 20, 2024, 07:55:20 PM

So, although RBF was turned off in the transaction here, did the miner ignore it and did someone else increase the fee and provide a transaction?
Did I get right ?

Yes you get it right, that is what actually happened

Quote from: lmajowka on July 20, 2024, 08:13:23 PM

Thank you Alberto!!!! I will mention in my next videos, my subscribers will go crazy

You welcome, lets to document this experiment a little bit just to keep the record for others:

Your original TX was 5 sat/vB with RBF disabled.

And here some of the Replacements:

13 sat/vB
First replacement listed was mine, (But remember not all accepted TX appear on this page, I already did some test and many Accepted TX disappear from this page)

Another One 29 sat/vB

44 sat/vB

52 sat/vB

64 sat/vB

77 sat/vB

93 sat/vB

111 sat/vB

135 sat/vB

Points to consider
- This was just luck, all depends of miner rules in update their block with new information or not
- No always higher bidder wins.
- Any listed transaction may had the possibility to win.

Quote from: lmajowka on July 20, 2024, 08:30:09 PM

First 2 were a disaster

I had a bug in my code so the wallets had 62 instead of 66 bits. Luckily, no one was able to RBF me and the blocks came really fast. I am glad that this 3rd time worked. Now we need to work on robust withdrawl strategies for the hunters finding 66 and above

I wasn't aware of the first two, And actually my script scan from 1 to 3f.......... because i wasn't sure if you fixed you code or not (I don't want any surprise for this test)

The only robust way to withdraw is to mine a block without broadcast the transaction before the block is mined, but this is difficult to do alone, maybe some miner should offer that option but there is no way to trust in a miner a weak public key under 90 bits.