Skip to content

Support elevated and extra elevated priorities in automatic fee priority algorithm #9799

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
woodser opened this issue Feb 14, 2025 · 4 comments

Comments

@woodser
Copy link
Contributor

woodser commented Feb 14, 2025

This issue requests supporting elevated or even extra elevated fee priority in wallet2's automatic fee priority algorithm, adjust_priority.

Currently only unimportant and normal levels are supported, which might be insufficient during severe congestion.

@woodser woodser changed the title Automatic fee priority algorithm only supports unimportant and normal levels Support elevated and extra elevated priorities in automatic fee priority algorithm Feb 14, 2025
@nahuhh
Copy link
Contributor

nahuhh commented Feb 14, 2025

I'm working this out for a future pr, but the idea was:

not sure if these are the specifics i want to stick with yet, which is why i havent pushed this in a pr.
Something like:
If > 360 block backlog and avg fee-rate in the tx pool is > 2x low, then return priority 3 ("elevated")

this would ensure that we aren't growing blocks unnecessarily fast due to low fee spam.

iirc, "normal fee" is enough to hit 3mb blocks within 72hrs, but there are times when using "elevated" makes sense imo.

i also feel there's absolutely no time when auto should elevate to priority 4. That would be horribly expensive and unexpected ux. Opt-in only. At "elevated" fee tier(3), blocks grow 4x as fast as "normal"(2), so any backlog should be negligible.

@Tzadiko
Copy link
Contributor

Tzadiko commented Mar 15, 2025

I'm working this out for a future pr, but the idea was:

Hey, are you still working on this? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it myself as well, but I don't want to step on your toes.

@nahuhh
Copy link
Contributor

nahuhh commented Mar 15, 2025

Hey, are you still working on this? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it myself as well, but I don't want to step on your toes.

Are you on matrix or irc?

@Tzadiko
Copy link
Contributor

Tzadiko commented Mar 16, 2025

Hey, are you still working on this? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it myself as well, but I don't want to step on your toes.

Are you on matrix or irc?

Just joined!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants