# Post-clustermempool package RBF: per-chunk processing

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/post-clustermempool-package-rbf-per-chunk-processing/190>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Tags:** wg-cluster-mempool, mempool\
**Created:** [November 14, 2023, 7:30pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/post-clustermempool-package-rbf-per-chunk-processing/190 "2023-11-14T19:30:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![instagibbs](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/instagibbs/32/28_2.png) [@instagibbs](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/instagibbs)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2023, 5:03pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/post-clustermempool-package-rbf-per-chunk-processing/190/10 "2023-11-22T17:03:03Z")

</div>

> [@sipa](#):
>
> - 
> 1. **Deduplication** : remove from `PKG` any transaction that’s already in the receiver’s mempool.

speaking of this step, I’m wondering if it would make sense to consider same-txid-different-wtxid as an RBF conflict? Today we simply drop the new tx and report the existing wtxid in the mempool.

Post-cluster mempool if the conflicting tx is larger, dedup it with smaller. If it is smaller than existing and is in a new chunk that satisfies the package RBF rules, I think wtxid-replacement works naturally without introducing free relay. As a side benefit it “prefers” smaller witnesses for relay, reducing benefits of witness stuffing, e.g., inscriptions during a coinjoin.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/post-clustermempool-package-rbf-per-chunk-processing/190)._