wallet: Revert input selection post-pruning #8298

1. 
   laanwj commented at 11:26 AM on July 1, 2016: member

   This reverts PR #4906, "Coinselection prunes extraneous inputs from ApproximateBestSubset".

   Apparently the previous behavior of slightly over-estimating the set of inputs was useful in cleaning up UTXOs.

   See also #7664, #7657, as well as 2016-07-01 discussion on #bitcoin-core-dev IRC.

2. wallet: Revert input selection post-pruning

   This reverts PR #4906, "Coinselection prunes extraneous inputs from
   ApproximateBestSubset".
   
   Apparently the previous behavior of slightly over-estimating the set of
   inputs was useful in cleaning up UTXOs.
   
   See also #7664, #7657, as well as 2016-07-01 discussion on #bitcoin-core-dev IRC.

   20f3cd75f6
3. laanwj added the label Wallet on Jul 1, 2016
4. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 11:50 AM on July 1, 2016: member

   I think we should do simulations to see the exact effect of this feature. But apparently it is controversial enough that it should not have been merged in the first place, so removal for 0.13 seems fine.

5. 
   laanwj commented at 11:57 AM on July 1, 2016: member

   Yes, apparently simulations are not clear that this was an improvement at all (see discussion in #4906). I know it's a huge burden for anyone proposing changes to coin selection, but I think it should have been proven that this is better than the status quo first before it was merged.

   Or maybe even that's putting the cart before the horse: there should be a list of criteria for coin-selection algorithms first, before we can evaluate what (incremental) improvements are good or bad.

6. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 0.13.0 on Jul 1, 2016
7. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 1:52 PM on July 1, 2016: member

   utACK 20f3cd7

8. 
   petertodd commented at 6:12 PM on July 5, 2016: contributor

   utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8298/commits/20f3cd75f6af8f75de943fef43b4b7769746f732

9. 
   RHavar commented at 3:22 AM on July 6, 2016: contributor

   I actually disagree with reverting this, conditional to the bug here: #7664 (comment) being fixed. If that's fixed, it'll be a good thing to have kept the "extraneous inputs" around, as they'll actually come in handy.

10. 
    gmaxwell commented at 3:32 AM on July 6, 2016: contributor

    @RHavar the challenge right now is that we're pretty close to a release to undertake a serious effort at coin selection reworking; so whatever we do has the be as minimal as possible

11. 
    RHavar commented at 3:35 AM on July 6, 2016: contributor

    In that case, I think (temporarily?) reverting it is the way to go. The behavior on 0.12 was definitely a big regression =)

12. laanwj merged this on Jul 6, 2016
13. laanwj closed this on Jul 6, 2016

    ---

14. laanwj referenced this in commit aef381161f on Jul 6, 2016
15. codablock referenced this in commit 9c3959b2cc on Sep 19, 2017
16. codablock referenced this in commit 1c60694f32 on Dec 27, 2017
17. codablock referenced this in commit 355f3724d2 on Dec 28, 2017
18. andvgal referenced this in commit 7a38c7edf3 on Jan 6, 2019
19. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Milestone
0.13.0