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.

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

CoinSelect using multiple small UTXOs instead of one big #65

Open
ademcan opened this issue Jul 12, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

CoinSelect using multiple small UTXOs instead of one big #65

ademcan opened this issue Jul 12, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@ademcan
Copy link

ademcan commented Jul 12, 2021

Hi team, thanks for the great work.
I realized that sometimes coinselect (Blackjack, with Accumulative fallback) is using multiple smaller UTXOs rather than one big, and therefore ends up with higher fees when sending BTC. Isn't it the idea of the default module to select the biggest UTXO first? Am I maybe using a wrong one?

@junderw
Copy link
Member

junderw commented Jul 14, 2021

Can you provide an example?

Since this library doesn't look at txid info etc. you can strip that data from the test data set so we can try it and see what's going on.

@Taweesakpintakam7m1
Copy link

Can you provide an example?

Since this library doesn't look at txid info etc. you can strip that data from the test data set so we can try it and see what's going on.

Hi team, thanks for the great work. I realized that sometimes coinselect (Blackjack, with Accumulative fallback) is using multiple smaller UTXOs rather than one big, and therefore ends up with higher fees when sending BTC. Isn't it the idea of the default module to select the biggest UTXO first? Am I maybe using a wrong one?

@spencerstock
Copy link

If blackjack is successful it will often result in higher fees. Blackjack isn't optimizing for low fees but for 0 change (ultimately reducing the amount of dust or small value UTXOs that will remain after the transaction)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants