The set of txs is the graph. Anything else would just reproduce the tx graph
which must be traversed in any case.
Similarly the set of txs is the fee, the sigops, the size, and the weight. The
only information required by packaging is the association of the txs with each
other for the purpose
Hi aj,
> If you've got (A,B,C,X) where B spends A and X spends A,B,C where X+C is
below fee floor while A+B and A+B+C+X are above fee floor you have the
problem though.
To clarify, in this situation, I'm imagining something like
A: 0 sat, 100vB
B: 1500 sat, 100vB
C: 0 sat, 100vB
X: 500 sat,
On 23 May 2022 9:13:43 pm GMT-04:00, Gloria Zhao wrote:
>> If you're asking for the package for "D", would a response telling you:
>> txid_D (500 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_A (0 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_B (2000 sat, 100 vB)
>> be better, in that case? Then the receiver can maybe do the logic
>>
--- Original Message ---
On Monday, May 23rd, 2022 at 17:09, AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Jonas, all,:
>
> So I do want to ask a couple further clarifying questions on this point, but
> I got rather majorly sidetracked :)
> I wonder can you (and other list readers!) take a look at
Hi woltx,
Thanks for implementing silent payments in Bitcoin Core. I tried the steps
shared in tutorial and everything works as expected.
I have updated the silent payment address (signet) as TXT record for domain
alice.silentbitco.in
$ dig -t txt alice.silentbitco.in +short
I created a short and simple tutorial on how to make silent payments on signet.
https://gist.github.com/w0xlt/72390ded95dd797594f80baba5d2e6ee
In this tutorial, the user will generate an address, publish it, receive and
spend coins from it and still no transactions are shown from this address in
Hi aj,
> if you're writing a protocol that's
> dependent on people seeing that a package as a whole pays a competitive
> feerate, don't you want to know in advance what conditions the network
> is going to impose on your transactions in order to consider them as a
> package?
I do think unifying
