bumpfee behavior with “Subtract fee from amount” #11122

1. 
   raedah commented at 10:38 pm on August 23, 2017: none

   When using the bumpfee command on a tx that was sent using “Subtract fee from amount”, the current response is this error. “Transaction does not have a change output (code -1)”. Since “Subtract fee from amount” was specified, the expected behavior would be to subtract the fee from the sent amount which would not require a change output.
2. fanquake added the label RPC/REST/ZMQ on Aug 24, 2017
3. 
   maflcko commented at 1:16 am on April 26, 2020: member

   bumpfee should be safe to use. Taking money from one of the recipients is not safe.
4. maflcko closed this on Apr 26, 2020

   ---

5. 
   whitslack commented at 1:20 am on April 26, 2020: contributor

   @MarcoFalke: I believe you have closed this issue without due consideration. When the user has sent a payment using subtractfeefromamount, they have already given explicit permission to deliver less than the requested amount to the requested recipient. Thus, it would not be unsafe for bumpfee to reduce the amount even further in this case. Besides, quite often when using subtractfeefromamount, the recipient is the same entity as the sender.
6. 
   maflcko commented at 1:58 am on April 26, 2020: member

   The wallet doesn’t currently track if subtractfeefromamount was set on a tx. But I’ll reopen the issue to see if someone is interested to work on this.
7. maflcko reopened this on Apr 26, 2020

   ---

8. 
   Sjors commented at 9:20 pm on January 1, 2021: member

   I would definitely like an option to subtract fee from the amount, e.g. to get stingy 1 sat/byte self-transfers unstuck. RPC would be the easiest place to start. GUI would require a warning that lowering the amount sent may cause the recipient (e.g. order not processed because they expected an exact amount).

   cc @instagibbs @achow101

9. 
   instagibbs commented at 6:40 am on January 2, 2021: member

   I think explicitly marking in the wallet a subtractfeefromaount, then allowing reduction of this later, is best UX? Less familiar with adding records to the wallet though.
10. 
    Sjors commented at 8:28 am on January 2, 2021: member

    That’s certainly better UX. But the easiest to implement is additional option (and then in a followup make that default to true for such translations).
11. 
    instagibbs commented at 8:31 am on January 2, 2021: member

    Well depends on the politics…

    Concept ACK either way

    On Sat, Jan 2, 2021, 4:28 PM Sjors Provoost notifications@github.com wrote:

    That’s certainly better UX. But the easiest to implement is additional option (and then in a followup make that default to true for such translations).

    — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11122#issuecomment-753447228, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMAFUYUWVH3RWUDJNKPVM3SX3KLBANCNFSM4DYCWIVA .

12. 
    willcl-ark commented at 2:30 pm on April 10, 2024: contributor

    @achow101 is this fixed by #22007 ?

Contributors
raedah maflcko whitslack Sjors instagibbs willcl-ark

Labels
RPC/REST/ZMQ