Wallet implicit defrag#2692
Conversation
…s a certain threshold of unspent outputs
| } | ||
| sort.Sort(sort.Reverse(so)) | ||
|
|
||
| // If we have too man unspent transactions we might as well do some |
|
Do we properly ignore dust outputs during transaction selection? For example, we don't want to be considering as a part of our defragging outputs that are smaller than the dust threshold - we should just consider that money to be gone. I guess that's not super relevant to this PR, if we weren't doing it before, this isn't the right place to start doing it. I waffled back and forth on whether selecting the smallest outputs first was the right move when doing a defrag, and I'm still not 100% convinced. The worry here is that if it's a large output, you'd consume every output in the wallet in one stroke, which would prevent you from sending different sets later on. The auto-defragger on the other hand is careful to make sure that you always have at least 10 large outputs available (the 10 largest). I think what we should do instead here is after we're done collecting the outputs that we need to collect the transaction, check if we want to defrag, and then if we do, we should skip 10 outputs and then collect the remaining ones. That way the user always has 10 outputs available. A big downside to defragging that I don't think we've discussed previously is privacy. Defragging a wallet correlates all of your outputs and destroys your privacy. I don't think most people care, but it's something we should continue to consider as we move forward. |
|
@DavidVorick Yes, |
2 participants
Once the wallet reaches a certain number of unspent outputs it will try to defrag them when spending coins. If no transactions are spent it will fall back to the defrag thread method.