-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
tapd: bump maxFeeRatio for funded psbts #1545
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 15071168916Details
💛 - Coveralls |
wallet_anchor.go
Outdated
// carry relatively small bitcoin amounts, we want to bump the allowed ratio | ||
// between fees paid and total produced output amount. This can prove useful in | ||
// high fee environments where we'd otherwise fail to fund the psbt. | ||
const psbtMaxFeeRatio = 0.75 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the rationale for this specific value? Why not 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There isn't really any rationale other than it's quite greater than 0.2
(the default) and also not very close to 1.0
my rationale against 1.0
is that you probably want some leftovers to eventually move the assets again in the future, without bringing in more inputs
Nevertheless I'm fine with changing to 1.0
, just wanted to dump some thoughts on it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good to me. I think we should add that rationale to the comment.
And perhaps we should actually just make it configurable as suggested in #1524 as well? Then we can set the new, higher default value of 0.75 but also allow the user to bump it if it's not sufficient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah makes sense to add it to this PR.
Added some comments on that issue, will pause this PR until we reach an agreement there.
99bb86a
to
e9d48fa
Compare
@GeorgeTsagk, remember to re-request review from reviewers when ready |
No description provided.