一個大概是一位驚慌的比特幣用戶以替換（RBF）交易費用支付了將近0.75 BTC（70,500美元）。

在4月8日午夜UTC之後約30分鐘發送了相關交易。這是執行RBF的第二次嘗試，以改變交易的目標地址，以0.2 BTC的變化（16357美元）發送0.48比特幣（37770美元）。

A presumably panicked Bitcoin user paid nearly 0.75 BTC ($70,500) in a replace-by-fee (RBF) transaction fee.

大概是一個驚慌失措的比特幣用戶以替換（RBF）交易費用支付了近0.75 BTC（70,500美元）。

The transaction in question was sent about 30 minutes after midnight UTC on April 8. It was the second attempt at performing an RBF that changed the transaction's target address, sending 0.48 Bitcoin ($37,770) with 0.2 BTC of change ($16,357).

有問題的交易是在4月8日午夜UTC後大約30分鐘發送的。這是第二次嘗試更改交易目標地址的RBF，以0.2 BTC的變化（$ 16,357）發送了0.48比特幣（37,770美元）。

Second Bitcoin RBF transaction. Source: Mempool.Space

第二比特幣RBF交易。資料來源：mempool.space

Anmol Jain, vice president of investigations at crypto forensics firm AMLBot, told Cointelegraph that the original transaction featured a “default or conservative” fee. The first RBF raised the fee to nearly double the amount and changed the output address.

Crypto Forensics公司Amlbot的調查副總裁Anmol Jain告訴Cointelegraph，最初的交易以“違約或保守”費用。第一個RBF提高了費用幾乎翻了一番，並更改了輸出地址。

Both of those transactions are waiting for a confirmation that will never come. This is because the much higher fee RBF transaction took its place with the same output as the second RBF transaction — presumably, an attempt to bump the fee to ensure that the RBF is processed rather than the original transaction.

這兩項交易都在等待永遠不會出現的確認。這是因為RBF交易更高的費用取代了與第二筆RBF交易相同的輸出，大概是試圖碰到費用以確保處理RBF而不是原始交易。

Related: How to fix a stuck Bitcoin transaction in 2025: A step-by-step guide

相關：如何在2025年修復卡住的比特幣交易：逐步指南

A presumed panic-induced error

假定的恐慌引起的錯誤

The transaction has signs of a panic-induced error, with the user sending a subsequent transaction fast to prevent the original transaction from being included in a block and becoming final. Jain suggested some potential explanations:

交易具有恐慌誘發的錯誤的跡象，用戶快速發送了後續交易，以防止原始交易被包含在塊中並成為最終。 Jain提出了一些潛在的解釋：

The second RBF transaction also added an additional input unspent transaction output (UTXO). This UTXO contained nearly 0.75 Bitcoin (BTC). The change was mistakenly included as part of the fee, likely because the user failed to update the change address or misjudged the transaction’s structure.

第二個RBF事務還增加了一個額外的輸入未解決的交易輸出（UTXO）。該UTXO包含近0.75個比特幣（BTC）。該更改被錯誤地作為費用的一部分包括在內，可能是因為用戶未能更新更改地址或誤判交易的結構。

Another possibility raised by Jain is that the user got confused between a fee in absolute terms and one set in satoshi per virtual byte (transaction size) or that the automated script behind the transaction contained a bug. The wallet could allow setting a fee in satoshis, which could lead to a scenario where the fee is set way too low, a warning about the low fee and an overcorrection:

Jain提出的另一種可能性是，用戶以絕對的方式在費用之間混淆了，一個虛擬字節（交易大小）中的satoshi中的一個設置或交易背後的自動腳本包含一個錯誤。錢包可以允許在Satoshis設定費用，這可能會導致費用設定得太低的情況，警告低費用和過度糾正：

Related: Bitcoin user pays $3.1M transaction fee for 139 BTC transfer

相關：比特幣用戶支付139 BTC轉移的310萬美元交易費

Replace-by-fee: a controversial feature

by-Fee：一個有爭議的功能

RBF is a widely misunderstood and controversial feature of Bitcoin. Bitcoin transactions are considered non-final until they are included in a block, with further confirmation by more blocks in the same chain.

RBF是比特幣的廣泛誤解和有爭議的特徵。比特幣交易被認為是非排隊，直到將它們包括在一個塊中，並在同一鏈中進一步確認。

Transactions in the mempool are at the mercy of miners — who are expected to be profit-driven. Bitcoin developers foresaw that with multiple conflicting Bitcoin transactions, the financial incentive would be to process the one paying the higher fee.

孟買的交易受到礦工的擺佈，他們有望以利潤為導向。比特幣開發商預測，由於多次沖突的比特幣交易，經濟激勵將是處理支付更高費用的人。

There is no easy way to prevent Bitcoin miners from simply including the transaction that was sent first, and it is also not straightforward to establish which transaction was submitted first due to the decentralized nature of the network. Consequently, this incentive was recognized in the RBF feature, allowing users to edit unconfirmed transactions by submitting an alternative transaction with a higher fee.

沒有簡單的方法可以防止比特幣礦工簡單地包括首先發送的交易，並且由於網絡的分散性質，首先提交了哪些交易也不是直接的。因此，這種激勵措施在RBF功能中得到了認可，使用戶可以通過提交較高費用的替代交易來編輯未經證實的交易。

This led to some controversies in the past, with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) proponent Hayden Otto claiming that RBFs allowed for Bitcoin double-spends back in 2019. In contrast, Bitcoin Cash has removed the feature and claimed that unconfirmed transactions sent on that network are final and secure to accept.

這導致了過去的一些爭議，比特幣現金（BCH）支持者海登·奧托（Hayden Otto）聲稱，RBFS允許在2019年進行比特幣雙重貨幣。相比之下，比特幣現金已刪除了這一功能，並聲稱該網絡上發送的未經證實的交易是最終並確保接受的。

Still, with the way blockchains function, RBF-like transactions were confirmed to occasionally occur on Bitcoin Cash either way. This is because RBF is just an implied property of a Bitcoin-like consensus mechanism that was formalized as a feature.

儘管如此，通過區塊鏈功能的方式，確認類似RBF的交易偶爾會以比特幣現金發生。這是因為RBF只是一種形式化為功能的類似比特幣的共識機制的隱含屬性。