descriptor: don't underestimate the size of a Taproot spend (instead, overestimate it)#32964
descriptor: don't underestimate the size of a Taproot spend (instead, overestimate it)#32964w0xlt wants to merge 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
We were previously assuming the key path was always used for size estimation, which could lead to underestimate the fees if one of the script paths was used in the end. Instead, overestimate: use the most expensive between the key path and all existing script paths. The functional test changes were authored by Ava Chow for PR 23502. Co-Authored-by: Ava Chow <[email protected]>, Antoine Poinsot <[email protected]>
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code Coverage & BenchmarksFor details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/32964. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
|
I don't think we should be overpaying by default, for two reasons:
An intermediate solution could be that we never sign script paths by default, i.e. make That seems better than the current "solution" of manually picking a higher fee rate for script path spends, while not impacting the default case of a working key path. It would reveal the presence of potentially longer script paths though. |
|
Closing in favor of #32857. |
3 participants
This PR revives #26573 since it has some ACKs and is labeled "Up for grabs".
I just added a comment explaining the behavior change.