Best-(Worst-)Case MEVil Response

The discussion touches upon an intriguing aspect of market dynamics, particularly focusing on how markets could address the issue of conflicted bids and mitigate the risk of replacement cycling attacks. The proposal suggests that by tracking recently conflicited bids and potentially reincorporating them once they are no longer in conflict, markets can effectively counter such attacks. This approach implies that the primary challenge lies in developing the necessary infrastructure to monitor these cycles, a task that, while significant, is deemed not overly burdensome for a peer-to-peer (p2p) setup.

Furthermore, the conversation delves into the possibility of circumventing Replace-By-Fee (RBF) incremental fee pinning. This strategy hinges on the assumption that the incentives for bid replacements are aligned with the miners' interests. By addressing and aligning these incentives appropriately, it's suggested that the marketplace could sidestep the complexities associated with RBF, thereby streamlining transactions and enhancing market efficiency. This perspective underscores the importance of understanding and catering to the economic motivations of participants within the system to foster a more resilient and fluid marketplace.