Merge #13680: [doc] Remove outdated comment about miner ignoring CPFP

db6eb90 [doc] Remove outdated comment about mining code ignoring CPFP (James O'Beirne)

Pull request description:

  BlockAssembler chooses transactions on the basis of packages (which incorporate
  unconfirmed ancestors into feerate), so the specified RBF comment about mining
  code ignoring CPFP is out of date.

Tree-SHA512: a4c1e60fee0a8f450526d565951187f869d000febce0eea8a8d2e18bb140c3c1b8602953d9dcab2d1e8d0c4fc8d392c67eb0773d67e52080d48e6b9bf13f9ee2

Author: laanwj

src/validation.cpp

@@ -806,13 +806,11 @@ static bool AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker(const CChainParams& chainparams, CTxMemPool
                 // be increased is also an easy-to-reason about way to prevent
                 // DoS attacks via replacements.
                 //
-                // The mining code doesn't (currently) take children into
-                // account (CPFP) so we only consider the feerates of
-                // transactions being directly replaced, not their indirect
-                // descendants. While that does mean high feerate children are
-                // ignored when deciding whether or not to replace, we do
-                // require the replacement to pay more overall fees too,
-                // mitigating most cases.
+                // We only consider the feerates of transactions being directly
+                // replaced, not their indirect descendants. While that does
+                // mean high feerate children are ignored when deciding whether
+                // or not to replace, we do require the replacement to pay more
+                // overall fees too, mitigating most cases.
                 CFeeRate oldFeeRate(mi->GetModifiedFee(), mi->GetTxSize());
                 if (newFeeRate <= oldFeeRate)
                 {