There is no point in engaging in partial spends if it costs less to avoid them. The sentence I changed meant that avoiding the partial spend will occur only if the fee is exactly the same, and if avoiding partial spends decreases fees (avoiding does result in a difference), then it won't avoid them, and instead make the higher fee transaction. While it may be impossible for the coin selection algorithm to create a lower fee transaction by avoiding partial spends, the language is now clearer and suggests this rather than leaving the reader to guess.
doc: APS explanation clarified in 0.21.0 release notes #20951
pull dscotese wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from dscotese:patch-1 changing 1 files +3 −4-
dscotese commented at 6:16 AM on January 17, 2021: contributor
-
7052881abc
APS explanation clarified
There is no point in engaging in partial spends if it costs less to avoid them. The sentence I changed means that avoiding the partial spend will occur only if the fee is exactly the same, and if avoiding partial spends *decreases* fees (avoiding **does result in a difference**), then it won't avoid them, and instead make a higher fee transaction. While it may be impossible for the coin selection algorithm to create a lower fee transaction by avoiding partial spends, the language is now clearer and suggests this rather than leaving the reader to guess.
- DrahtBot added the label Docs on Jan 17, 2021
- laanwj requested review from achow101 on Jan 19, 2021
- laanwj renamed this:
APS explanation clarified
doc: APS explanation clarified in 0.21.0 release notes
on Jan 19, 2021 -
jonatack commented at 3:27 PM on January 20, 2021: member
I recall reviewing #14582 by @kallewoof but I'm not sure this version is clearer. Am a bit rushed but will look tomorrow.
-
kallewoof commented at 7:27 AM on January 21, 2021: member
There is no point in engaging in partial spends if it costs less to avoid them.
It never will. The coin selection is less restricted when it is allowed to do partial spends. There will either be exactly the same fee, or the fee will be higher for APS.
That aside, I'm +/- 0 on your change. The wording changes the perspective from "avoiding partial spends at the expense of slightly increased fees" to "doing partial spend to decrease fees". I think the latter will confuse existing users as to them there is no decrease, only an increase.
Edit: actually, I do think the "difference" part in the original should be "increase".
-
jonatack commented at 11:00 AM on January 21, 2021: member
I prefer the current description that describes the default and agree with s/a difference/an increase/.
-
laanwj commented at 1:17 PM on February 1, 2021: member
There doesn't seem to be agreement that the old wording is really in error. The time window for discussing small improvements for the 0.21.0 release notes is reaching its end, I think. By far most people reading these release notes ever will have already read the old version.
So I'm closing this, sorry.
- laanwj closed this on Feb 1, 2021
-
dscotese commented at 11:04 PM on March 2, 2021: contributor
It's easy enough for anyone to fix it as @kallewoof and @jonatack suggested, now that the insinuation ("difference" implies that it can be an increase or a decrease) has been clarified as wrong. I understand the "most people ..." argument, but the fact is that the small details that create helpful or harmful insinuations don't matter to most people. They matter to the few who are best positioned to contribute and improve things because they are detail oriented and carefully parse the language. If anyone sees that value, they can make a new PR with the s/a difference/an increase/ change.
Where can I find a description of "The time window for discussing small improvements for the 0.21.0 release notes"? I should probably pay more attention to my GH notifications.
- DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022
