Dan Gould
Dan Gould
Is using rust-bitcoin base64 feature ok now since https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/issues/510#issuecomment-888903597 510 is closed?
`channel_count * (8 + 1 + 1 + 32) // OP_0 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 `
This `check_fees` fn in the bip78 crate is relevant. I'm still not sure what those +12 bytes are for when the output has no additional output 🤔 https://github.com/Kixunil/payjoin/blob/150dd33b9c60a4e1c219955b9af2e5aca0a43bec/bip78/src/sender/mod.rs#L196-L225
The public key hash in P2WPKH is 20 bytes; The script hash in P2WSH is 32 bytes. 32-20 is 12 when the static reserve output is substituted with a channel...
~I think this fee calculation assumes only + `1` additional input and + `1` additional output while the args support more than one channel to be queued.~
Could `8 + 1 + 1 + 32` be wrong? I think `OP_0 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 ` is actually 34 bytes
if the payment fails bc e.g the other party is offline you could set the toggle off to do a default on-chain spend. Or if the other party has pj...
@benalleng Can't you use [``](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/Input/checkbox) toggle?
Would Pay-to-endpoint `?pj=` flow be welcome?
Here is a test with some valid payjoin bip21s: https://github.com/DanGould/rust-payjoin/blob/ecce332ab1ddb23f50d4cecfe7b583e94dca6e19/bip78/src/uri.rs#L224-L241 One example would be `BITCOIN:TB1Q6D3A2W975YNY0ASUVD9A67NER4NKS58FF0Q8G4?amount=1&pj=https://example.com` the `pj` param contains a valid secure endpoint, either `https` or `.onion`