to the point about stuff like malleability AND RBF
And this cancels/revokes the transaction how? According to your explanation, the transaction goes through no matter what. There is no option to nullify the transaction.
can you read.. i said the opposite.. here ill quote you.
which will make pools drop the first tx in preference to the second one being added to the next block
goodluck with your life
Explain to us also how accepting zero-confirmations was ever a good idea? Can you explain how your scenario could happen today without the use of RBF? Because the same danger exists with or without the use of RBF. For instance, there is nothing to stop a miner from simply preferring the first seen transaction over the fee replacement anyway (I seem to remember that some mechanism like that exists, perhaps you'll look it up for us, seeing as you're so interested in this topic, Franky?)
i have said all along that no one should be accepting zero confirms and thus bitcoin should only be treated as a settlement layer because it should not be trusted as a payment layer for zero-confirms.
but even though they presume to fix malleability, RBF allows the same risk of messing with transactions by the USER. so the situation has not gotten better.
yes pools (separate scenario compared to user abuse) can also do strange things. but there is more chance of user abuse then pool abuse. and so i concentrated on how users can abuse transactions where funds are presumed to be destined to go to retailers that would stupidly trust zero confirms, due to the stupid mindset of blockstreamers telling users that when malleability is sorted its safe to trust zero confirms.
