Comment to nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm on his article about one-shot RBF:

Section 2, rule 2 and 3: while it is entirely logical that part of the ruleset is some measurement of expectation of confirmation of the replacement, I'm wondering, is there a fly in the ointment as mentioned several other places in the article: you are here referring to *the* mempool, which can only be the local node's mempool. Since almost none of those mempools are the mempool of the node that mines the next block, could that cause a problem? (Ironically, censorship such as seen in Knots/Ocean's policy (i.e. actually meaningful censorship of economically significant transactions) might mean that a node sees N=1 when in "real life" it's more like N=20 depth for "the" uncensored mempool).

I'm guessing the answer is "no, not a problem" because from a local perspective, one-shottedness is achieved, and it's only locally that you need/want that?

Hmm, anyway, I actually do kind of like the one-shot idea; as you pontificate near the end, it's debatable whether the multi-shot behaviour of the simplest possible rule (x% higher fee rate) is really a problem or not, but it's nice to remove it.

https://petertodd.org/2024/one-shot-replace-by-fee-rate#fnref:mempool-consensus