Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Accomodate Updated BIP 78 Spec #480

Open
5 of 15 tasks
DanGould opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 1 comment
Open
5 of 15 tasks

Accomodate Updated BIP 78 Spec #480

DanGould opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 1 comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Milestone
payjoin-0.23

Comments

@DanGould
Copy link
Contributor

DanGould commented Jan 14, 2025 •
edited
Loading

BIP 78 got some fixes merged this morning

We must adjust to keep up to date as well as encourage other implementations to update since these are basically a relaxing of the rules.

Implementations that need updates:
@DanGould DanGould mentioned this issue Jan 14, 2025
Open
11 tasks
@DanGould DanGould added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Jan 14, 2025
@DanGould
Copy link
Contributor Author

Marked as "good first issue" regarding notifying and updating other BIP 78 implementations

This was referenced Jan 14, 2025
Open
Open
Draft
Open
@DanGould DanGould added this to the payjoin-0.23 milestone Jan 20, 2025
DanGould added a commit to DanGould/rust-payjoin that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2025
@DanGould
Keep input UTXO data through input finalization
5d6460e 
BIP 78 (Payjoin v1) was updated to remain in compliance
with BIP 174 (PSBT v0).

See: bitcoin/bips#1396
See also: payjoin#480
DanGould added a commit to DanGould/rust-payjoin that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2025
@DanGould
Allow mixed inputs in v1 payjoin
1b4478b 
BIP 78 was updated to allow mixed inputs.

> Disallowing mixed inputs was based on incorrect assumption that no
> wallet supports mixed inputs and thus mixed inputs imply PayJoin.
> However there are at least three wallets supporting mixed inputs.
> (Confirmed: Bitcoin Core, LND, Coinomi) Thus it makes sense to enable
> mixed inputs to avoid a payjoin-specific fingerptint. To avoid
> compatibility issues a grace period is suggested.

See: bitcoin/bips#1605
See also: payjoin#480
@DanGould DanGould mentioned this issue Jan 23, 2025
Merged
DanGould added a commit to DanGould/rust-payjoin that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2025
@DanGould
Allow mixed inputs in v1 payjoin
8f627c6 
BIP 78 was updated to allow mixed inputs.

> Disallowing mixed inputs was based on incorrect assumption that no
> wallet supports mixed inputs and thus mixed inputs imply PayJoin.
> However there are at least three wallets supporting mixed inputs.
> (Confirmed: Bitcoin Core, LND, Coinomi) Thus it makes sense to enable
> mixed inputs to avoid a payjoin-specific fingerptint. To avoid
> compatibility issues a grace period is suggested.

See: bitcoin/bips#1605
See also: payjoin#480
DanGould added a commit to DanGould/rust-payjoin that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2025
@DanGould
Allow mixed inputs in v1 payjoin
ab12170 
BIP 78 was updated to allow mixed inputs.

> Disallowing mixed inputs was based on incorrect assumption that no
> wallet supports mixed inputs and thus mixed inputs imply PayJoin.
> However there are at least three wallets supporting mixed inputs.
> (Confirmed: Bitcoin Core, LND, Coinomi) Thus it makes sense to enable
> mixed inputs to avoid a payjoin-specific fingerptint. To avoid
> compatibility issues a grace period is suggested.

See: bitcoin/bips#1605
See also: payjoin#480
spacebear21 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2025
@spacebear21
Accomodate Updated BIP 78 Spec (#505)
e88f972 
See #480

`InternalInputContributionError` has only one error variant as a result
of this, which means it's a smell to clean up in #403

One thing I note is that the BIP says "Our recommendation for
<code>maxadditionalfeecontribution=</code> is <code>originalPSBTFeeRate
* 110</code>." and our actual use is `let recommended_additional_fee =
min_fee_rate * input_weight;` where input_weight is 110 only where mixed
inputs appear. I did not remove the `expected_input_weight` function for
a blanket 110 recommendation, which I believe is in line with actual
incentives to use a matching input. but I could go either way.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
Payjoin Roadmap 📝
Status: No status
Milestone
payjoin-0.23
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@DanGould