doc: Use FeeModes doc helper in estimatesmartfee#20568
Merged
laanwj merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom Dec 7, 2020
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Rendered diff: diff --git a/estimatesmartfee b/estimatesmartfee
index b424d58..3a3193a 100644
--- a/estimatesmartfee
+++ b/estimatesmartfee
@@ -1,35 +1,35 @@
estimatesmartfee conf_target ( "estimate_mode" )
Estimates the approximate fee per kilobyte needed for a transaction to begin
confirmation within conf_target blocks if possible and return the number of blocks
for which the estimate is valid. Uses virtual transaction size as defined
in BIP 141 (witness data is discounted).
Arguments:
1. conf_target (numeric, required) Confirmation target in blocks (1 - 1008)
-2. estimate_mode (string, optional, default=CONSERVATIVE) The fee estimate mode.
+2. estimate_mode (string, optional, default=conservative) The fee estimate mode.
Whether to return a more conservative estimate which also satisfies
a longer history. A conservative estimate potentially returns a
higher feerate and is more likely to be sufficient for the desired
target, but is not as responsive to short term drops in the
prevailing fee market. Must be one of:
- "UNSET"
- "ECONOMICAL"
- "CONSERVATIVE"
+ "unset"
+ "economical"
+ "conservative"
Result:
{ (json object)
"feerate" : n, (numeric, optional) estimate fee rate in BTC/kB (only present if no errors were encountered)
"errors" : [ (json array, optional) Errors encountered during processing (if there are any)
"str", (string) error
...
],
"blocks" : n (numeric) block number where estimate was found
The request target will be clamped between 2 and the highest target
fee estimation is able to return based on how long it has been running.
An error is returned if not enough transactions and blocks
have been observed to make an estimate for any number of blocks.
}
Examples:
> bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 6 |
laanwj
reviewed
Dec 4, 2020
fa8bdb8 to
fa09513
Compare
jonatack
reviewed
Dec 6, 2020
Member
jonatack
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tested ACK fa09513fb609dbb0d
jonatack
reviewed
Dec 6, 2020
kristapsk
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2020
Contributor
kristapsk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK fa09513fb609dbb0d7381289505de72257902edc
Can be reviewed with --ignore-all-space
b00ff8b to
fa8abdc
Compare
Member
|
Code review ACK fa8abdc |
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2020
fa8abdc rpc: Use FeeModes doc helper in estimatesmartfee (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: Not sure why this doesn't use the doc helper, probably an oversight? ACKs for top commit: laanwj: Code review ACK fa8abdc Tree-SHA512: 1f2dc8356e3476ddcf9cafafa7f9865ad95bed1e3067c0edab8e3c483e374bdbdbecc066167554b4a1b479e28f6a52c4ae6a75a70c67ee4e1ff4f3ba36b04001
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Not sure why this doesn't use the doc helper, probably an oversight?