-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Sending multiple outputs in a single transaction results in 'transaction too large for fee policy' #302
Comments
OK, so the question is why feeRate should be set to Here is what I'm doing:
If I omit Is there any explanation about this behavior ? EDIT: in bitcoin it works just fine if I specify For now, as a workaround, I'm just omitting Thank you. |
The fee in LTC is 0.001 LTC per kb, it's mandatory. You can't lower that fee on LTC, and there are special rules for dust (outputs under 0.001 LTC) which cause penalty TX fees (addt. 0.001 LTC per 0.001< output). |
@Someguy123, how can you explain then that the resulting fee is |
I think 0.00066800 is the fee for the entire transaction, not per 1024 bytes. So, if the entire transaction is < 1024 bytes, than a fraction of the .001 fee per 1024 bytes make sense. I tried to find your transaction in a testnet block explorer, but couldn't find it to verify the complete transaction size. |
@face, sure it is. It's just confusing what |
feeRate = fee per 1024 bytes. You ask how the "fee" it can be less than .001 and that confuses you. That is because it is the "fee" that is .000668, not the "feeRate". I think it will make more sense to you if you compare it to a rate in a grocery store. So instead of .001 per 1024 bytes, say it was $1 per kilogram of rice. If you then bought half a kilogram of rice, the final fee would be $0.50. That is how a rate of $1 produces a fee of $0.50. The same thing with Litecoin. If you pay a rate of .001 per 1024bytes for 512 bytes, your fee would be .0005, which is less than the feeRate of .001. |
Here you go, the test transaction: https://chain.so/tx/LTCTEST/1229e0f7be81971e9618b6ba66165d7f8b2dcf94fb1c48da31e579e072ad311e It's 1212 bytes, final fee is So fee per KB should be: But in fact I can't set It seems the fee per KB was in fact used little over then |
Yes. But what is odd about a hard coded consensus rule to prevent spamming with dust? As @Someguy123 stated: "The fee in LTC is 0.001 LTC per kb, it's mandatory" |
@face sorry i didn't know that multi output transaction requires 0.001 LTC per kb. |
Yes, it is documented as mintxfee. And it applies to single output transactions too. It applies to all transactions: https://litecoin.info/Transaction_fees |
ok, @face, I'm closing this issue then. would be nice tho for developers force this fee policy as well for settxfee aka paytxfee. |
8225239 Merge litecoin-project#433: Make the libcrypto detection fail the newer API. 12de863 Make the libcrypto detection fail the newer API. 2928420 Merge litecoin-project#427: Remove Schnorr from travis as well 8eecc4a Remove Schnorr from travis as well a8abae7 Merge litecoin-project#310: Add exhaustive test for group functions on a low-order subgroup b4ceedf Add exhaustive test for verification 83836a9 Add exhaustive tests for group arithmetic, signing, and ecmult on a small group 20b8877 Add exhaustive test for group functions on a low-order subgroup 80773a6 Merge litecoin-project#425: Remove Schnorr experiment e06e878 Remove Schnorr experiment 04c8ef3 Merge litecoin-project#407: Modify parameter order of internal functions to match API parameter order 6e06696 Merge litecoin-project#411: Remove guarantees about memcmp-ability 40c8d7e Merge litecoin-project#421: Update scalar_4x64_impl.h a922365 Merge litecoin-project#422: Restructure nonce clearing 3769783 Restructure nonce clearing 0f9e69d Restructure nonce clearing 9d67afa Update scalar_4x64_impl.h 7d15cd7 Merge litecoin-project#413: fix auto-enabled static precompuatation 00c5d2e fix auto-enabled static precompuatation 91219a1 Remove guarantees about memcmp-ability 7a49cac Merge litecoin-project#410: Add string.h include to ecmult_impl 0bbd5d4 Add string.h include to ecmult_impl 353c1bf Fix secp256k1_ge_set_table_gej_var parameter order 541b783 Fix secp256k1_ge_set_all_gej_var parameter order 7d893f4 Fix secp256k1_fe_inv_all_var parameter order c5b32e1 Merge litecoin-project#405: Make secp256k1_fe_sqrt constant time 926836a Make secp256k1_fe_sqrt constant time e2a8e92 Merge litecoin-project#404: Replace 3M + 4S doubling formula with 2M + 5S one 8ec49d8 Add note about 2M + 5S doubling formula 5a91bd7 Merge litecoin-project#400: A couple minor cleanups ac01378 build: add -DSECP256K1_BUILD to benchmark_internal build flags a6c6f99 Remove a bunch of unused stdlib #includes 65285a6 Merge litecoin-project#403: configure: add flag to disable OpenSSL tests a9b2a5d configure: add flag to disable OpenSSL tests b340123 Merge litecoin-project#402: Add support for testing quadratic residues e6e9805 Add function for testing quadratic residue field/group elements. efd953a Add Jacobi symbol test via GMP fa36a0d Merge litecoin-project#401: ecmult_const: unify endomorphism and non-endomorphism skew cases c6191fd ecmult_const: unify endomorphism and non-endomorphism skew cases 0b3e618 Merge litecoin-project#378: .gitignore build-aux cleanup 6042217 Merge litecoin-project#384: JNI: align shared files copyright/comments to bitcoinj's 24ad20f Merge litecoin-project#399: build: verify that the native compiler works for static precomp b3be852 Merge litecoin-project#398: Test whether ECDH and Schnorr are enabled for JNI aa0b1fd build: verify that the native compiler works for static precomp eee808d Test whether ECDH and Schnorr are enabled for JNI 7b0fb18 Merge litecoin-project#366: ARM assembly implementation of field_10x26 inner (rebase of litecoin-project#173) 001f176 ARM assembly implementation of field_10x26 inner 0172be9 Merge litecoin-project#397: Small fixes for sha256 3f8b78e Fix undefs in hash_impl.h 2ab4695 Fix state size in sha256 struct 6875b01 Merge litecoin-project#386: Add some missing `VERIFY_CHECK(ctx != NULL)` 2c52b5d Merge litecoin-project#389: Cast pointers through uintptr_t under JNI 43097a4 Merge litecoin-project#390: Update bitcoin-core GitHub links 31c9c12 Merge litecoin-project#391: JNI: Only call ecdsa_verify if its inputs parsed correctly 1cb2302 Merge litecoin-project#392: Add testcase which hits additional branch in secp256k1_scalar_sqr d2ee340 Merge litecoin-project#388: bench_ecdh: fix call to secp256k1_context_create 093a497 Add testcase which hits additional branch in secp256k1_scalar_sqr a40c701 JNI: Only call ecdsa_verify if its inputs parsed correctly faa2a11 Update bitcoin-core GitHub links 47b9e78 Cast pointers through uintptr_t under JNI f36f9c6 bench_ecdh: fix call to secp256k1_context_create bcc4881 Add some missing `VERIFY_CHECK(ctx != NULL)` for functions that use `ARG_CHECK` 6ceea2c align shared files copyright/comments to bitcoinj's 70141a8 Update .gitignore 7b549b1 Merge litecoin-project#373: build: fix x86_64 asm detection for some compilers bc7c93c Merge litecoin-project#374: Add note about y=0 being possible on one of the sextic twists e457018 Merge litecoin-project#364: JNI rebased 86e2d07 JNI library: cleanup, removed unimplemented code 3093576 JNI library bd2895f Merge pull request litecoin-project#371 e72e93a Add note about y=0 being possible on one of the sextic twists 3f8fdfb build: fix x86_64 asm detection for some compilers e5a9047 [Trivial] Remove double semicolons c18b869 Merge pull request litecoin-project#360 3026daa Merge pull request litecoin-project#302 03d4611 Add sage verification script for the group laws a965937 Merge pull request litecoin-project#361 83221ec Add experimental features to configure 5d4c5a3 Prevent damage_array in the signature test from going out of bounds. 419bf7f Merge pull request litecoin-project#356 03d84a4 Benchmark against OpenSSL verification git-subtree-dir: src/secp256k1 git-subtree-split: 8225239
Hi.
I'm using fundrawtransaction() to collect inputs for sending out and it seems to not work properly, I'm getting:
Litecoin version is
v0.13.2.1
.I'm testing on the testnet network.
What could be the issue here?
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: