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
mempool min fee not met when using sendrawtransaction #7630
Comments
@Gruez there's no bug here local transactions are treated exactly the same way that outside transactions are treated to avoid fingerprinting attacks |
I believe that contradicts the intention for the
My interpretation of this is that the transaction should be relayed, even if it was rejected for not meeting the min mempool fee. I checked for when the check for mempool min happens, and it's after the check for |
There should probably be a flag for sendrawtransaction to act as if whitelisted, default to off. |
Maybe it would be simpler to just have a "force" flag for sendrawtransaction that will override everything except consensus rules. |
I ran into this other day, and an easy work around is to first call |
Relaying a transaction you wouldn't accept yourself is generally a waste of time-- not just fingerprinting avoidance-- after all, if your own node wouldn't relay it because the fee is too low, then none of your peers likely will either. The whitelist relay stuff is mostly intended to handle rebroadcasts for transactions which weren't correctly relayed the first time because you had few/no peers up at the time. Priortizing it is a pretty good general workaround, -- though it still won't make peers handle the transaction. :) |
Not sure this is a bug. Also, a "workaround" exists. |
I'm currently using 0.12.0.
When I attempt to broadcast a 0 fee, non-dust output transaction using sendrawtransaction, I get the following error message:
After restarting the node, the transaction broadcasts just fine. Shouldn't local RPC calls be excluded from the memory pool's fee policy?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: