[Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee #9481

jonasschnelli · 2017-01-06T10:02:54Z

There are multiple reports (bitcoin.stackoverflow, etc.) from users sending (very-)low-fee-transactions with bitcoin-core.
The reason for this is probably that some users are not waiting long enough until smartfee estimation is possible.
The current fallback fee is 0.0002BTC/kb, one of my ~0.13.0 nodes is telling me 0.00069534 for a confirmation target of 25 blocks. Using the current fallback fee can be troublesome.

If we have to use the fallback-ferrate, we should probably warn the user more significant (there is no "warning" right now.).

Screenshots:

maflcko · 2017-01-06T10:50:01Z

src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui

@@ -760,10 +760,30 @@
           </layout>
          </item>
          <item>
+           <widget class="QLabel" name="fallbackFeeWarningLabel">
+            <property name="toolTip">
+             <string>Using the fallbackfee can result in sending a transaction that will take serval hours or days (or never) to confirm. Consider choosing your fee manually or wait until your have validated the complete chain.</string>


validating the whole chain is not enough. You also need the mempool at all times of validation.

I have though about that, but to not over-explain this, I was picking out the most important part, which is probably a validated chain. And since we persist the mempool, this is less of a problem.

maflcko · 2017-01-06T10:50:40Z

src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui

@@ -760,10 +760,30 @@
           </layout>
          </item>
          <item>
+           <widget class="QLabel" name="fallbackFeeWarningLabel">
+            <property name="toolTip">
+             <string>Using the fallbackfee can result in sending a transaction that will take serval hours or days (or never) to confirm. Consider choosing your fee manually or wait until your have validated the complete chain.</string>


The warning is one sided. Using the fallbackfee might also overpay

Maybe just mention that the fallbackfee is hardcoded and the fee should be selected manually. (or the node should be run for some hours to initialize smart fee)

maflcko · 2017-01-06T10:52:10Z

Concept ACK

paveljanik · 2017-01-06T11:05:27Z

src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui

@@ -760,10 +760,30 @@
           </layout>
          </item>
          <item>
+           <widget class="QLabel" name="fallbackFeeWarningLabel">
+            <property name="toolTip">
+             <string>Using the fallbackfee can result in sending a transaction that will take serval hours or days (or never) to confirm. Consider choosing your fee manually or wait until your have validated the complete chain.</string>


serval -> several

jonasschnelli · 2017-01-06T12:07:43Z

Fixed the text after recommendation from @paveljanik and @MarcoFalke.
Happy to exchange the text(s) (tooltip / label) with better ones if someone has intentions to provide better ones.

morcos · 2017-01-06T14:04:09Z

Concept ACK

I think there are a few other things we could potentially do:

Clarify via release notes that fallbackfee can be set on the command line and should be when starting a new node or catching up from a long time ago.
Change the default fallbackfee every release (yeah i know... no one likes this, including me)
Prevent transactions from going out using fee estimation if we would fall back to the fallbackfee (unless it was explicitly set by the user?)

It's always going to be problem to get transactions out the door before we've had a chance to bootstrap fee estimation but would be nice to make it harder for users to shoot themselves in the foot. At least now the fallbackfee is such that their transactions will probably be confirmed within a day or two, but that might not remain true...

In any case, warning with the current behavior is a good first step.

gmaxwell · 2017-01-07T00:44:01Z

@morcos to your list: get bumpfee working really well and worry less about this. :)

luke-jr · 2017-02-09T10:14:34Z

src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui

+             <string>Using the static fallback-fee can result in sending a transaction that will take several hours or days (or never) to confirm or that you overpay the fees. Consider choosing your fee manually or wait until your have validated the complete chain.</string>
+            </property>
+            <property name="styleSheet">
+             <string notr="true">color: rgb(255, 150, 0);


This affects the tooltip style as well. Additionally, it is hard to read on some styles.

laanwj · 2017-02-09T10:19:44Z

This is an excellent idea, thanks for implementing it. Concept ACK!

luke-jr · 2017-02-17T06:36:32Z

Actually, this seems redundant with labelSmartFee2...? Maybe that should just be made clearer (disable the slider??)

Edit: (Oh, nevermind. That's not visible by default.)

luke-jr · 2017-02-17T08:43:15Z

jonasschnelli/bitcoin@2017/01/fee_warning...luke-jr:fee_warning

jonasschnelli · 2017-02-17T10:43:11Z

Added @luke-jr commits (@thanks!).
Looks good on Windows.
Maybe we can get a windows and linux dark scheme screenshot?

laanwj · 2017-03-14T12:06:06Z

Worksforme. ACK 7abe7bb:

…e default fee 7abe7bb Qt/Send: Give fallback fee a reasonable indent (Luke Dashjr) 3e4d7bf Qt/Send: Figure a decent warning colour from theme (Luke Dashjr) c5adf8f [Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee (Jonas Schnelli) Tree-SHA512: 9e85b5b398d7a49aaf6c42578d63750b1b7aa9cc9e84d008fe21d6c53f1ffe2fb69286a1a764e634ebca3286564615578eea0a1bc883e4b332be8306d9883d14

practicalswift · 2017-03-16T08:09:47Z

I found a typo in this PR - see #10008 for details.

Sorry for not catching it pre-merge :-)

…ing' into 0.14.2_fixes

…k to the default fee 7abe7bb Qt/Send: Give fallback fee a reasonable indent (Luke Dashjr) 3e4d7bf Qt/Send: Figure a decent warning colour from theme (Luke Dashjr) c5adf8f [Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee (Jonas Schnelli) Tree-SHA512: 9e85b5b398d7a49aaf6c42578d63750b1b7aa9cc9e84d008fe21d6c53f1ffe2fb69286a1a764e634ebca3286564615578eea0a1bc883e4b332be8306d9883d14

[Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee

c5adf8f

jonasschnelli added the GUI label Jan 6, 2017

maflcko reviewed Jan 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

paveljanik reviewed Jan 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

jonasschnelli force-pushed the 2017/01/fee_warning branch from c5adf8f to 404a9c5 Compare January 6, 2017 12:06

luke-jr reviewed Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

luke-jr added 2 commits February 17, 2017 11:00

Qt/Send: Figure a decent warning colour from theme

3e4d7bf

Qt/Send: Give fallback fee a reasonable indent

7abe7bb

jonasschnelli force-pushed the 2017/01/fee_warning branch from 404a9c5 to 7abe7bb Compare February 17, 2017 10:43

laanwj merged commit 7abe7bb into bitcoin:master Mar 14, 2017

practicalswift mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2017

[trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning #10008

Merged

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2017

Merge bitcoin#9481 via remote-tracking branch 'jonas/2017/01/fee_warn…

aca4b6d

…ing' into 0.14.2_fixes

maflcko mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017

cost too many fees? #10247

Closed

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021

[Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee #9481

[Qt] Show more significant warning if we fall back to the default fee #9481

Uh oh!

Conversation

jonasschnelli commented Jan 6, 2017

Uh oh!

maflcko Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonasschnelli Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Jan 6, 2017

Uh oh!

paveljanik Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonasschnelli commented Jan 6, 2017

Uh oh!

morcos commented Jan 6, 2017

Uh oh!

gmaxwell commented Jan 7, 2017

Uh oh!

luke-jr Feb 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laanwj commented Feb 9, 2017

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Feb 17, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Feb 17, 2017

Uh oh!

jonasschnelli commented Feb 17, 2017

Uh oh!

laanwj commented Mar 14, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Mar 16, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Feb 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Mar 14, 2017 •

edited

Loading