wallet: mark bip125-replaceable RPC key and walletrbf startup option as deprecated by rkrux · Pull Request #34917 · bitcoin/bitcoin

rkrux · 2026-03-25T09:53:29Z

Partially fixes #32661.

This patch set is in line with the deprecation of outdated
BIP 125 opt-in RBF signalling and fullrbf in wallet transaction
RPCs and startup options.

DrahtBot · 2026-03-25T09:53:59Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/34917.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	w0xlt, polespinasa, achow101

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste  into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#33034 (wallet: Store transactions in a separate sqlite table by achow101)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

Possible typos and grammar issues:

Using this options emits -> Using this option emits [“options” should be singular to match the referenced startup option.]

^{2026-05-22 14:48:57}

rkrux · 2026-05-11T15:02:16Z

Rebased over master to incorporate changes from #21283 and #33671.

polespinasa · 2026-05-14T09:28:55Z

Concept ACK

Will review soon.
This will need a release note indicating all the deprecated fields and startup options.

rkrux · 2026-05-20T13:26:51Z

Rebased over master to incorporate changes from #35279 and changed the approach to deprecate the walletrbf startup option instead of removing it outright as highlighted in #34917 (comment).

rkrux · 2026-05-20T14:42:17Z

Interesting compilation error that happens in non-mac envs, that's why worked in my local: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/26166359698/job/76975610926?pr=34917

Transactions are replaceable by default since v28 and the corresponding tweaking argument has been removed since v29. The related key from the mempool RPC has been marked deprecated as well since v29, this patch does the same for the wallet transaction RPCs such as listtransactions, listsinceblock, and gettransaction. Users can pass the -deprecatedrpc=bip125 startup argument to retrieve this key in the responses of above mentioned RPCs.

All transactions are by default replaceable since v28, the wallet need not have a configuration option to opt into RBF signalling because it seems redundant now. Emit a warning if this option is used.

Effective post bitcoin-core/gui#936. Co-authored-by: Pol Espinasa <pol.espinasa@uab.cat>

w0xlt

ACK 5faf2ad

polespinasa

code reviewed ACK 5faf2ad

Tested it manually locally and the behavior is the expected.

I think if we are deprecating this for v32.0 we be consistent and do the same with all other RPCs. We have time though, if you open a PR deprecating the others feel free to ping me to review.

polespinasa · 2026-05-25T14:59:52Z

+marked as deprecated. Users still have the option to retrieve this
+key by passing the `-deprecatedrpc=bip125` startup option. Also,
+the `-walletrbf` startup option has been marked as deprecated and
+will be fully removed in the next release. Using this options emits


feel-free-to-ignore-nit: Maybe worth explicitly saying the next release number.
I guess we can get this merged for v32.0. So removed by v33.0?

polespinasa · 2026-05-25T15:12:04Z

I was just thinking (post-acking the PR) if keeping ONLY the information fields is useful. For monitoring and analysis on the network it might be useful.

@0xB10C would removing this bip125-replaceable affect any of your monitoring on transactions signaling RBF?

0xB10C · 2026-05-25T20:00:16Z

No, I don't think I/we care about bip125-replaceable anymore at this point.

achow101 · 2026-05-26T00:42:05Z

ACK 5faf2ad

maflcko

concept ack. I had a branch doing this last year, but I forgot to create a pull for this.

Haven't checked everything, but I think the approach may be moving in the wrong direction.

maflcko · 2026-05-26T09:07:49Z

    wallet->m_confirm_target = args.GetIntArg("-txconfirmtarget", DEFAULT_TX_CONFIRM_TARGET);
    wallet->m_spend_zero_conf_change = args.GetBoolArg("-spendzeroconfchange", DEFAULT_SPEND_ZEROCONF_CHANGE);
-    wallet->m_signal_rbf = args.GetBoolArg("-walletrbf", DEFAULT_WALLET_RBF);
+    wallet->m_signal_rbf = DEFAULT_WALLET_RBF;


I think this is the wrong default.

The general idea seems to avoid bip125-replacement, because it is deprecated. So using it, seems backwards. See also the related fixup #31953, which moved toward fullrbf, away from bip125-rbf.

Maybe this is something we can debate on a next PR when removing the options or opening an issue to discuss what the correct path is, but I see some benefits on keep signaling bip125-replacement.

Wallet fingerprinting, currently ~80% of the transactions are signaling it. data. Following what the majority do if it's harmless seems a good choice for privacy.

I guess we want old nodes that still look for bip125-replacement signaling to also replace transactions. Signaling it on every transaction would act as a fullrbf.

Maybe I am missing some downside, but I cannot come with any.

This PR was focussed on marking the fields as deprecated, it was intentional on my part to not change the default, which I think is best done in a separate PR.

Wallet fingerprinting, currently ~80% of the transactions are signaling it. data. Following what the majority do if it's harmless seems a good choice for privacy.

I think the graph shows that the 90-day moving average was always below 50% up to 3 years ago (the year prior to when #30592 was opened and merged). Not sure which self-custodial wallets or which custodial wallets are responsible for the recent increase, but given that the increase was recent, it seems that those wallets are likely easier to upgrade to a new behavior than those wallets that haven't switched to bip125 signalling in a decade.

So I think for those that care about privacy, it would be beneficial to not use bip125 signalling and quickly (hopefully less than ~3 years) converge again toward an anonymity set where the majority is not signalling.

I guess we want old nodes that still look for bip125-replacement signaling to also replace transactions. Signaling it on every transaction would act as a fullrbf.

#25353 with fullrbf was merged 4 years ago, and I don't think one can meaningfully run a node older than that in a safe way.

Not sure which self-custodial wallets or which custodial wallets are responsible for the recent increase

I think I can get some data for that, will check and write it here just for curiosity :)
I mostly agree with the other things you said, I was just pointing some ideas that came to my mind.

The general idea seems to avoid bip125-replacement, because it is deprecated.

Raised the PR #35405 here that does this.

For context, some of my colleges at uni are doing research on wallet fingerprinting and they shared with me some data about bip125:

Which matches Ishaana's work results

f701cd1 doc: fix typo in release notes of #34917 (rkrux) 7bc39e3 wallet, test: add wallet_deprecated_rbf.py for walletrbf deprecated keys & options (rkrux) 2cbbcb5 wallet, test: remove -deprecatedrpc=bip125 from wallet_send.py (rkrux) 307134b wallet, test: remove -deprecatedrpc=bip125 from wallet_migration.py (rkrux) 3ec550d wallet, test: remove -deprecatedrpc=bip125 from wallet_basic.py (rkrux) a52ea9b wallet, test: remove -walletrbf startup option from wallet_backwards_compatibility.py (rkrux) 4233092 wallet, test: remove -walletrbf startup option from wallet_backwards_compatibility.py (rkrux) 8cb6e40 wallet, test: remove -walletrbf startup option from wallet_listtransactions.py (rkrux) 0ee94b2 wallet, test: remove -deprecatedrpc=bip125 from wallet_listtransactions.py (rkrux) 5e833e0 wallet, test: -walletrbf startup option from wallet_bumpfee.py (rkrux) a2a2b17 wallet, test: remove -walletrbf startup option from rpc_psbt.py (rkrux) a3fe455 wallet: refactor to read -walletrbf only once instead of twice (rkrux) Pull request description: Prerequisite to #35404 and #35405. All these changes address the points raised in the review of PR #34917 here: #34917 (review). Essentially updating the existing wallet functional tests without using the -deprecatedrpc=bip125 and -walletrbf startup options. Instead, these two are added and tested via a singular new wallet_deprecated_rbf.py test that can be removed easily later when these startup options are completely removed from the wallet post deprecation. ACKs for top commit: maflcko: review ACK f701cd1 🌄 achow101: ACK f701cd1 Tree-SHA512: 700785062b5de8ee3b6c4f50570b769d56c6c4960f2b6e2a2e71be8085c6b51eaeb34fb158fae76f812fe82791aaa0c0277f964f0472cb0784b86caabe6d4ec9

DrahtBot added the Wallet label Mar 25, 2026

rkrux mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2026

rpc, mempool: -deprecatedrpc fullrbf and bip125-replaceable from mempool RPCs #34911

Merged

w0xlt reviewed Mar 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/init.cpp

This was referenced Apr 3, 2026

scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval #31260

Open

wallet: parallel fast rescan (approx 5x speed up with 8 threads) #34400

Draft

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Apr 23, 2026

rkrux force-pushed the wallet-rbf branch from 8c0a7d6 to dc57844 Compare May 11, 2026 15:01

optout21 reviewed May 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/wallet.h

DrahtBot added CI failed and removed Needs rebase labels May 11, 2026

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2026

psbt, test: remove address type restrictions in test #35279

Merged

polespinasa mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

Remove opt-in RBF bitcoin-core/gui#936

Merged

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label May 19, 2026

rkrux force-pushed the wallet-rbf branch from dc57844 to fc70f98 Compare May 20, 2026 13:25

rkrux changed the title ~~wallet: mark bip125-replaceable deprecated, remove walletrbf argument~~ wallet: mark bip125-replaceable RPC key and walletrbf startup option as deprecated May 20, 2026

rkrux force-pushed the wallet-rbf branch from fc70f98 to 265f09e Compare May 20, 2026 13:40

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label May 20, 2026

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request May 21, 2026

wallet: Store transactions in a separate sqlite table #33034

Draft

rkrux added 2 commits May 21, 2026 15:23

wallet: mark -walletrbf startup option as deprecated

97f7cc0

All transactions are by default replaceable since v28, the wallet need not have a configuration option to opt into RBF signalling because it seems redundant now. Emit a warning if this option is used.

rkrux force-pushed the wallet-rbf branch from 265f09e to 751d4c1 Compare May 21, 2026 09:54

DrahtBot removed the CI failed label May 21, 2026

polespinasa reviewed May 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/init.cpp Outdated

rkrux and others added 2 commits May 22, 2026 20:18

wallet: remove "RPC Only" from -walletrbf option help description

aba24a9

Effective post bitcoin-core/gui#936. Co-authored-by: Pol Espinasa <pol.espinasa@uab.cat>

doc: add release notes for deprecation of wallet rbf & bip125 fields

5faf2ad

rkrux force-pushed the wallet-rbf branch from 751d4c1 to 5faf2ad Compare May 22, 2026 14:48

w0xlt reviewed May 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot requested a review from polespinasa May 23, 2026 09:04

polespinasa reviewed May 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

achow101 merged commit dd0dea3 into bitcoin:master May 26, 2026
27 checks passed

maflcko reviewed May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

rkrux mentioned this pull request May 26, 2026

wallet, test: optinrbf deprecation followups #35381

Merged

rkrux added a commit to rkrux/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 26, 2026

doc: fix typo in release notes of bitcoin#34917

695b1fe

rkrux added a commit to rkrux/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 27, 2026

doc: fix typo in release notes of bitcoin#34917

ddda0c3

rkrux added a commit to rkrux/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 27, 2026

doc: fix typo in release notes of bitcoin#34917

efada4d

rkrux added a commit to rkrux/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 27, 2026

doc: fix typo in release notes of bitcoin#34917

a723947

rkrux added a commit to rkrux/bitcoin that referenced this pull request May 28, 2026

doc: fix typo in release notes of bitcoin#34917

f701cd1

rkrux mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2026

wallet: switch default optinrbf from true to false #35405

Open

Conversation

rkrux commented Mar 25, 2026 • edited by achow101 Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Mar 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rkrux commented May 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

rkrux commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

rkrux commented May 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

w0xlt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa May 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

0xB10C commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

achow101 commented May 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

maflcko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

maflcko May 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa May 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rkrux May 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko May 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa May 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rkrux May 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

polespinasa May 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

rkrux commented Mar 25, 2026 •

edited by achow101

Loading

DrahtBot commented Mar 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

polespinasa May 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

polespinasa May 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading