wallet: add destination (output) and bump fee #22007

1. 
   Sjors commented at 6:42 pm on May 20, 2021: member

   This would allow ad hoc transaction batching. When a wallet transaction is unconfirmed, I’d like to be able to add an additional destination / output. BIP 125 requires that such a transaction also increases the fee rate.

   One approach would be to create a new wallet RPC `addoutput, which takes a transaction hash, address, amount and fee rate (difference).

   A better approach imo would be to add a new argument extra_outputs to bumpfee (and psbtbumpfee). This would have the same format as outputs in send.

   Two complications come to mind:

   1. If the original transaction used subtract_fee_from_outputs we don’t store that information (see also #11122), so either: a) the user has to provide that array again for us to subtract the additional fee correctly; or b) the extra fee is paid entirely from change
   2. If the previous transaction confirms, rather than the new one, the user has to figure this out and manually craft a new transaction
2. Sjors added the label Feature on May 20, 2021
3. 
   ghost commented at 7:22 pm on May 20, 2021: none

   Concept ACK

   A better approach imo would be to add a new argument extra_outputs to bumpfee (and psbtbumpfee). This would have the same format as outputs in send.

   Approach ACK

   b) the extra fee is paid entirely from change

   LGTM

   Apart from outputs, not sure if someone is already working to add inputs in replacement transaction, would be great if if we had coin control in RBF.

   Also bumpfee RPC should not broadcast transaction, as a user I always want to check transaction details before broadcasting (including inputs)

4. 
   Sjors commented at 8:04 pm on May 20, 2021: member

   @prayank23 those last two things are definitely out of scope. But they are useful. Can you make separate issues for them? (do a search on “rbf” and “bumpfee” first, but I don’t recall these having their own issue yet)
5. 
   ghost commented at 1:47 pm on August 8, 2022: none

   @Sjors do you have any opinion on #25344 which fixes this issue?
6. 
   Sjors commented at 3:56 pm on August 8, 2022: member

   I’ll take look!
7. achow101 referenced this in commit 73966f75f6 on Feb 16, 2023
8. 
   furszy commented at 2:21 pm on May 7, 2023: member

   This can be closed. #25344 implemented the changes.
9. fanquake closed this on May 7, 2023

   ---

10. bitcoin locked this on May 6, 2024

Contributors
Sjors ghost furszy

Labels
Feature