一个大概是一位惊慌的比特币用户以替换（RBF）交易费用支付了将近0.75 BTC（70,500美元）。

在4月8日午夜UTC之后约30分钟发送了相关交易。这是执行RBF的第二次尝试，以改变交易的目标地址，以0.2 BTC的变化（16357美元）发送0.48比特币（37770美元）。

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

大概是一个惊慌失措的比特币用户以替换（RBF）交易费用支付了近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).

有问题的交易是在4月8日午夜UTC后大约30分钟发送的。这是第二次尝试更改交易目标地址的RBF，以0.2 BTC的变化（$ 16,357）发送了0.48比特币（37,770美元）。

Second Bitcoin RBF transaction. Source: Mempool.Space

第二比特币RBF交易。资料来源：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的调查副总裁Anmol Jain告诉Cointelegraph，最初的交易以“违约或保守”费用。第一个RBF提高了费用几乎翻了一番，并更改了输出地址。

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.

这两项交易都在等待永远不会出现的确认。这是因为RBF交易更高的费用取代了与第二笔RBF交易相同的输出，大概是试图碰到费用以确保处理RBF而不是原始交易。

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

相关：如何在2025年修复卡住的比特币交易：逐步指南

A presumed panic-induced error

假定的恐慌引起的错误

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:

交易具有恐慌诱发的错误的迹象，用户快速发送了后续交易，以防止原始交易被包含在块中并成为最终。 Jain提出了一些潜在的解释：

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.

第二个RBF事务还增加了一个额外的输入未解决的交易输出（UTXO）。该UTXO包含近0.75个比特币（BTC）。该更改被错误地作为费用的一部分包括在内，可能是因为用户未能更新更改地址或误判交易的结构。

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提出的另一种可能性是，用户以绝对的方式在费用之间混淆了，一个虚拟字节（交易大小）中的satoshi中的一个设置或交易背后的自动脚本包含一个错误。钱包可以允许在Satoshis设定费用，这可能会导致费用设定得太低的情况，警告低费用和过度纠正：

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

相关：比特币用户支付139 BTC转移的310万美元交易费

Replace-by-fee: a controversial feature

by-Fee：一个有争议的功能

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是比特币的广泛误解和有争议的特征。比特币交易被认为是非排队，直到将它们包括在一个块中，并在同一链中进一步确认。

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.

孟买的交易受到矿工的摆布，他们有望以利润为导向。比特币开发商预测，由于多次冲突的比特币交易，经济激励将是处理支付更高费用的人。

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.

没有简单的方法可以防止比特币矿工简单地包括首先发送的交易，并且由于网络的分散性质，首先提交了哪些交易也不是直接的。因此，这种激励措施在RBF功能中得到了认可，使用户可以通过提交较高费用的替代交易来编辑未经证实的交易。

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.

这导致了过去的一些争议，比特币现金（BCH）支持者海登·奥托（Hayden Otto）声称，RBFS允许在2019年进行比特币双重货币。相比之下，比特币现金已删除了这一功能，并声称该网络上发送的未经证实的交易是最终并确保接受的。

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.

尽管如此，通过区块链功能的方式，确认类似RBF的交易偶尔会以比特币现金发生。这是因为RBF只是一种形式化为功能的类似比特币的共识机制的隐含属性。