# Sibling Eviction for v3 transactions

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/sibling-eviction-for-v3-transactions/472>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Tags:** mempool, lightning\
**Created:** [January 24, 2024, 2:28pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/sibling-eviction-for-v3-transactions/472 "2024-01-24T14:28:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<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:** [January 25, 2024, 4:14pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/sibling-eviction-for-v3-transactions/472/6 "2024-01-25T16:14:59Z")

</div>

> [@morehouse](#):
>
> In that case, I say yes we definitely want sibling eviction, since that’s the most intuitive behavior.

Yes, your understanding is correct. This was part of my original intent behind ephemeral anchors, as the requirement to spend it means implicit sibling eviction. This is splitting up the feature basically.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/sibling-eviction-for-v3-transactions/472)._