search

ordinals / ord

👁‍🗨 Rare and exotic sats
https://ordinals.com
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
3.81k stars 1.35k forks source link

bumpFee on reveal transaction #3628

Closed eriklueth closed 2 months ago

eriklueth commented 4 months ago

We have committed to a rune name 6 blocks before halving and revealed it in the halving block. Because the fees went crazy, we decided to bump them using the bitcoin-cli bumpFee command. This has worked on signet with previous ord versions (ord 0.18.0). However, with ord 0.18.3, the rune will not be displayed on ordinals.com/runes. Is it possible to fix the interpretation such that reveal transactions that were bumped are still valid etchings? Thanks!

GiantDole commented 4 months ago

Have seen a couple of projects getting burnt by this.... :/

onchainguy-btc commented 4 months ago

Same 💀

GiantDole commented 4 months ago

By observing the mempool, I at least found these transactions that made use of RBF (e.g. bumpFee) for reveal transactions that didn't count as etching: 7016cfd34168a7b4a0f4fd6dfc4e1711a2b9736a011b80362077d26677565d44 27bbb1f7776d3ac5f41c17a5cde59b4feba5e9f5c5e76f19559c787a7c771055 34e9371a7c070e3af2b3eafa44e7d6b321776b3dcc81eb07952afe2bdad561a2

It should be feasible to track the commitment across a replaced reveal transaction and recognize this as valid etching.

victorkirov commented 4 months ago

The inputs for these etchings are not committing to the name. The original transaction did, but the RBF'd one not. It wouldn't really make sense to base etching off off transactions that never made it onto the blockchain. 🤔

The reason it worked previously (pre 0.17) is that there was no commitment feature.