Skip to content
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

[qt] Update coin control and smartfee labels #6887

Merged

Conversation

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Oct 25, 2015

This will sync the qt labels with the wallet's fee code.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Oct 25, 2015

So the idea here is to use the min relay fee instead of the wallet's configured fee, whichever is higher?

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member Author

MarcoFalke commented Oct 25, 2015

Yes, it's just what the wallet already does. This should make qt consistent again. C.f.

  • 037b4f1 (Make mining fee policy match relay fee policy) and
  • aa279d6 (Enforce minRelayTxFee on wallet created tx)
@laanwj laanwj added the GUI label Oct 26, 2015
@jgarzik
Copy link
Contributor

jgarzik commented Oct 27, 2015

ut ACK

@@ -2120,6 +2120,11 @@ bool CWallet::CommitTransaction(CWalletTx& wtxNew, CReserveKey& reservekey)
return true;
}

CAmount CWallet::GetRequiredFee(unsigned int nTxBytes)
{
return std::max(minTxFee.GetFee(nTxBytes), ::minRelayTxFee.GetFee(nTxBytes));

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Oct 29, 2015

Member

Sad to see another coupling between the Wallet and the Mempool/Node. But it's already all over.
Ideally the wallet should not directly access global mempool variables instead it should get data over a general interface.

@jonasschnelli
Copy link
Member

jonasschnelli commented Oct 29, 2015

Makes sense.
utACK.

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke force-pushed the MarcoFalke:MarcoFalke-2015-qtMaxMin_Fee_and_Max_Fee branch Nov 3, 2015
@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member Author

MarcoFalke commented Nov 3, 2015

@morcos This is addressing your issue #5202. Mind to review?

@morcos
Copy link
Member

morcos commented Nov 3, 2015

I think most of the pull makes sense, but I'd save removing the AbsurdFee check until we replace it with something better. Having the only effective high fee check be the ATMP check is dicey since that depends on minRelayTxFee which people might be adjusting for other reasons. Also I'm not sure how this is meant to work with #6726. I don't like the idea of having less and less checks for accidental high fees. I just think we should rework them to be better organized.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Nov 4, 2015

I agree with @morcos. The absurdfee check is just a belt-and-suspenders check, in case something goes wrong due to a bug in another part of the code. I don't feel good about removing it.
I also don't think that change belongs in a "Update coin control and smartfee labels" pull.

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke force-pushed the MarcoFalke:MarcoFalke-2015-qtMaxMin_Fee_and_Max_Fee branch to 53238ff Nov 4, 2015
@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member Author

MarcoFalke commented Nov 4, 2015

@laanwj I also don't think that change belongs in a "Update coin control and smartfee labels" pull.

Still, the fee label behaves wrong and needs update, but I force dropped the last commit to open a new PR for this...

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 53238ff into bitcoin:master Nov 5, 2015
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2015
53238ff Clarify what minrelaytxfee does (MarcoFalke)
abd8b76 [qt] Properly display required fee instead of minTxFee (MarcoFalke)
@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke deleted the MarcoFalke:MarcoFalke-2015-qtMaxMin_Fee_and_Max_Fee branch Nov 5, 2015
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2019
Bitcoin 0.12 cleanup PRs 2

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:

- bitcoin/bitcoin#6631
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6664
  - Only the first commit (we already had the second through bitcoin/bitcoin#6825).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6669
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6887
  - Only the non-QT parts.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6962
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6822
  - Only first and third commits (we already had the second through an earlier PR).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7136
  - Excludes Travis CI changes, and fixes to documents we don't have anymore.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7084
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7509
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7617
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7726

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2019
Bitcoin 0.12 cleanup PRs 2

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:

- bitcoin/bitcoin#6631
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6664
  - Only the first commit (we already had the second through bitcoin/bitcoin#6825).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6669
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6887
  - Only the non-QT parts.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6962
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6822
  - Only first and third commits (we already had the second through an earlier PR).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7136
  - Excludes Travis CI changes, and fixes to documents we don't have anymore.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7084
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7509
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7617
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7726

Part of #2074.
zkbot added a commit to zcash/zcash that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2019
Bitcoin 0.12 cleanup PRs 2

Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs:

- bitcoin/bitcoin#6631
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6664
  - Only the first commit (we already had the second through bitcoin/bitcoin#6825).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6669
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6887
  - Only the non-QT parts.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6962
- bitcoin/bitcoin#6822
  - Only first and third commits (we already had the second through an earlier PR).
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7136
  - Excludes Travis CI changes, and fixes to documents we don't have anymore.
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7084
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7509
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7617
- bitcoin/bitcoin#7726

Part of #2074.
furszy added a commit to PIVX-Project/PIVX that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2020
4038de4 [QA] Restore 'feature_fee_estimation.py' functional test (random-zebra)
988f349 [qt] Properly display required fee instead of minTxFee (random-zebra)
c5c9df0 [Trivial] Fix typos (random-zebra)
a8fa99b [Trivial] Remove redundat check in ContainsZerocoins (random-zebra)
8ebcbcd PolicyEstimator: exclude zerocoin spends when computing estimates (random-zebra)
b67049b Create new BlockPolicyEstimator for fee estimates (random-zebra)

Pull request description:

  This introduces the new fee and priority estimation code described here <https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06405.html>.

  Instead of calculating the median fee for each possible number of blocks needed to confirm, the new code divides the possible fee rates into buckets (spaced logarithmically) and keeps track of the number of blocks needed to confirm for each transaction in each bucket.

  Backports:
  - bitcoin#5159
  - bitcoin#6887

  except for the functional test (`smartfees.py`) which is based on an older version of the framework.
  Instead I've restored a more recent `feature_fee_estimation.py` (commenting out the check for `estimatesmartfee` which can be reintroduced once bitcoin#6134 is backported).

  Additional commits exclude zerocoins txes from the estimates calculation, as they have fixed fee/priority.

ACKs for top commit:
  Fuzzbawls:
    ACK 4038de4
  furszy:
    ACK 4038de4 and merging

Tree-SHA512: 25777af469f7fa84d2dab991544392bea8418bccb4d2c23113de2c6ed7047891bdaedad1728cb04ba343e82f4bc0c1446f88e28def698dd25168769abf8620bb
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.