# 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:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ajtowns](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/ajtowns/32/417_2.png) [@ajtowns](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/ajtowns)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2023, 3:05am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/post-clustermempool-package-rbf-per-chunk-processing/190/4 "2023-11-15T03:05:41Z")

</div>

Could we reasonably pass that information on when relaying after accepting to the mempool though? We’d need to either recognise that the latter chunk pays DoS-fees for the higher-priority chunk; or we’d need to track “orphaned for DoS reasons” collection and retry chunks when high-fee child chunks are announced?

Just seems like something we could easily skip initially and introduce later as an improvement if warranted – it’s not a regression, and probably not likely to be particularly common? KISS, etc.

(I agree that it seems feasible and there are cases where it would be useful if it worked reliably)

---

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