Skip to content

Conversation

@ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Mar 6, 2024

Screenshot from 2024-03-06 23-14-21

test/functional/test_runner.py

PR184
66 Failed

PR184 && PR185
57 Failed

@JaredTate
Copy link

I am not 100% sure what exactly this should be. I need to break down the math & logic and write it down so it's clear to everyone. Once we do that, it should be smooth sailing for all the fee issues. We want the fee high enough to prevent cheap spam attacks, and low enough for room to grow & incentive for cheap TX's on DGB. Last thing we want is if DGB 10x in next year and transactions get spendy for everyone.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 7, 2024

I am not 100% sure what exactly this should be. I need to break down the math & logic and write it down so it's clear to everyone. Once we do that, it should be smooth sailing for all the fee issues. We want the fee high enough to prevent cheap spam attacks, and low enough for room to grow & incentive for cheap TX's on DGB. Last thing we want is if DGB 10x in next year and transactions get spendy for everyone.

getfee

It is calculate the fee over 1000 bytes. I think we should change fees in other places like mintxfee and default_min_relay_tx_fee.

Update
tested

i did couple of test with core wallet. And this pr. No problems so far.

Copy link

@JaredTate JaredTate left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK. Compiles & runs. Ah yes, this function returns the fee in satoshis for a 1000-byte transaction. It indeed should call GetFee(1000) instead of GetFee(100000) to correctly represent a kilobyte (1000 bytes) of transaction data.

Copy link
Member

@ycagel ycagel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cACK. Thanks @Jongjan88!

Copy link
Member

@gto90 gto90 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

Thank you @Jongjan88 and @JaredTate

@gto90 gto90 merged commit de8ca5c into DigiByte-Core:develop Mar 7, 2024
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 7, 2024

Thanks! @JaredTate @ycagel @gto90 !! Lets go to 50..

@ghost ghost deleted the fix branch March 7, 2024 22:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants