Skip to content

Fix escrow fee #859

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Fix escrow fee #859

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 2 additions & 5 deletions src/brs/TransactionType.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2959,9 +2959,6 @@ protected void validateAttachment(Transaction transaction) throws SignumExceptio
{
throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Invalid escrow creation amount");
}
if (transaction.getFeeNqt() < Constants.ONE_SIGNA) {
throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Escrow transaction must have a fee at least 1 burst");
}
if (attachment.getRequiredSigners() < 1 || attachment.getRequiredSigners() > 10) {
throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Escrow required signers much be 1 - 10");
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3042,8 +3039,8 @@ public TransactionDuplicationKey getDuplicationKey(Transaction transaction) {
@Override
protected void validateAttachment(Transaction transaction) throws SignumException.ValidationException {
Attachment.AdvancedPaymentEscrowSign attachment = (Attachment.AdvancedPaymentEscrowSign) transaction.getAttachment();
if (transaction.getAmountNqt() != 0 || transaction.getFeeNqt() != Constants.ONE_SIGNA) {
Copy link

@gittrekt gittrekt May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the minimum excrow transaction fee is supposed to be hard set to a minimum of 1 so this probably should be <= or just <

if (transaction.getAmountNqt() != 0 || transaction.getFeeNqt() <= Constants.ONE_SIGNA)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@damccull damccull May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm. The point of this PR is to /remove/ the hardcoded minimum so the dynamic minimums can be used like every other transaction. Don't remember who was mentioning it, but someone complained about it. Should we leave it at 1, like it already is? What's the justification for a higher 1-signum fee?

Copy link

@gittrekt gittrekt Jun 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I honestly don't know much about the escrow system. Asking why it's hard set to 1 is a mystery to me. We can go dynamic, but this would be a full team decision. @ohager @frankTheTank72

throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Escrow signing must have amount 0 and fee of 1");
if (transaction.getAmountNqt() != 0) {
throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Escrow signing must have amount 0");
}
if (attachment.getEscrowId() == null || attachment.getDecision() == null) {
throw new SignumException.NotValidException("Escrow signing requires escrow id and decision set");
Expand Down