doc: update comment in policy.cpp to refer to virtual bytes #27726

1. 
   jonathanbier commented at 9:57 AM on May 23, 2023: none

   I think this should be virtual bytes? Or maybe not

2. 
   DrahtBot commented at 9:57 AM on May 23, 2023: contributor

   <!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   <!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

3. glozow added the label Docs on May 23, 2023
4. 
   glozow commented at 10:12 AM on May 23, 2023: member

   Looks correct to me, cc @Xekyo

5. jonathanbier renamed this:
   Update policy.cpp
   doc: update comment in policy.cpp to refer to virtual bytes
   on May 23, 2023
6. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on May 24, 2023
7. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on May 25, 2023
8. glozow requested review from murchandamus on Jun 2, 2023
9. in src/policy/policy.cpp:38 in d497caf4a9 outdated

     34 | @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ CAmount GetDustThreshold(const CTxOut& txout, const CFeeRate& dustRelayFeeIn)
     35 |      // 182*dustRelayFee/1000 (in satoshis).
     36 |      // 546 satoshis at the default rate of 3000 sat/kvB.
     37 |      // A typical spendable segwit P2WPKH txout is 31 bytes big, and will
     38 | -    // need a CTxIn of at least 67 bytes to spend:
     39 | +    // need a CTxIn of at least 67 virtual bytes to spend:
   

   ---

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 6:46 PM on June 12, 2023:

   Yeah, this should be vbytes instead of bytes. The figure is also inaccurate, a P2WPKH input is 67.75 vbytes (low r) or 68.0 vbytes (high r).

   ---

   

   jonathanbier commented at 7:10 PM on June 13, 2023:

   Thanks @Xekyo

   I was just trying to understand this policy

   Next time I have a question like this I will ask on stackexchange rather than creating pull requests here.

   ---

   

   fanquake commented at 12:28 PM on June 14, 2023:

   @jonathanbier did you want to make the required updates here? Note that you'll need to sqaush your commits, and write a proper commit message etc.

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 7:28 PM on June 14, 2023:

   Ah, you might be looking for this Stack Exchange post then: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/41082/5406

10. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jun 14, 2023
11. 
    murchandamus commented at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2023: contributor

    I’m not sure this can be addressed by just editing the comment. IIRC, Bitcoin Core at least used 294 sats as the dust limit for P2WPKH in the past, even though it should be 297 sats, which might still be the case unless it was fixed since. It may have downstream effects for other Bitcoin software if the limit were increased now to the appropriate figure.

12. jonathanbier force-pushed on Jun 15, 2023
13. jonathanbier force-pushed on Jun 21, 2023
14. doc: update comment in policy.cpp to refer to vbytes

    doc: update comment in policy.cpp to refer to virtual bytes

    66d8be9f0d
15. jonathanbier force-pushed on Jun 21, 2023
16. 
    jonathanbier commented at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2023: none

    Is this ok now or is there anything else I need to do?

17. achow101 requested review from murchandamus on Sep 20, 2023
18. 
    maflcko commented at 10:50 AM on September 21, 2023: member

    Could do a rebase for fresh CI, if still relevant?

19. 
    DrahtBot commented at 2:34 PM on February 5, 2024: contributor

    <!--2e250dc3d92b2c9115b66051148d6e47-->

    🤔 There hasn't been much activity lately and the CI seems to be failing.

    If no one reviewed the current pull request by commit hash, a rebase can be considered. While the CI failure may be a false positive, the CI hasn't been running for some time, so there may be a real issue hiding as well. A rebase triggers the latest CI and makes sure that no silent merge conflicts have snuck in.

20. 
    glozow commented at 2:41 PM on February 5, 2024: member

    Closing for lack of activity + too trivial.

21. glozow closed this on Feb 5, 2024

    ---

22. bitcoin locked this on Feb 4, 2025

Contributors

jonathanbierDrahtBotglozowmurchandamusfanquakemaflcko

Review Requested
murchandamus