ghost43
ghost43
not sure how to reproduce. is it maybe a coinjoin-like thing with some inputs not being ismine? (although from a quick look, even that should already be handled)
Could you give some context? What is the goal of this PR? Also, isn't electrum already packaged by debian? Is that not enough? Also, there is a related PR: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/5336
> I suspect this is caused by the removal of the `FLAG_SECURE` (related https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/8522) It would be nice if OP could confirm by testing with the mentioned config setting.
Note: if this is really related to `FLAG_SECURE`, it might now be fixed on version 4.5.3. So it would be great if you could test with that @EurekaIgnem
> it would be useful to show what the on-chain fee (s/vb) was used in the last exchange of commitment transactions The desktop qt GUI shows this (added recently in...
>> it would be useful to show what the on-chain fee (s/vb) was used in the last exchange of commitment transactions > > The desktop qt GUI shows this (added...
>>> a possible button to manually refresh commitment transactions in the event that the channel has been idle over a period of rapid fee escalation >> >> Hmm... Is this...
> > If you have a link to some docs, even just the name of this setting that has these `{ low, medium, high }` values, I can look it...
Given that the current fees are now shown in the UI, what exactly remains to be done? The suggestion is a bit unclear. Or can the issue be closed? If...
Is this with trampoline routing enabled or disabled?