What Is the Primary Argument for Enabling Full RBF by Default in Node Software?

The primary argument for enabling Full RBF by default is that it enforces economic reality and improves fee market efficiency. Proponents argue that 0-conf transactions were never truly secure, and Full RBF forces users and merchants to acknowledge this by waiting for confirmations or adopting Layer 2 solutions.

By allowing any transaction to be replaced by a higher-fee version, it ensures miners always select the most profitable transactions, leading to a more competitive and responsive fee market.

What Is a ‘Replace-by-Fee’ (RBF) Transaction?
What Is the Impact of Layer-2 Scaling Solutions on the Layer-1 Transaction Fee Market?
In Options Trading, What Is a Concept Similar to RBF’s Fee Adjustment for Priority?
What Are the Fee-Bumping Rules (E.g. Minimum Fee Increase) for a BIP125 RBF Replacement?
How Do ‘Layer 2’ Solutions Address PoW Scalability Issues?
What Are ‘Layer 2’ Scaling Solutions for the EVM?
Can a Sudden Drop in Volatility Also Trigger a Margin Adjustment?
Can a Zero-Fee Transaction Be Rejected by a Mining Pool’s Software?

Glossar