AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 12 Bitcoin

test_wallet_vertical: add test for batch tx fee increase

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by f321x

95/100 · Strong
test_wallet_vertical: add test for batch tx fee increase

Adds unittest to check the fee increase when adding outputs to a base
tx. Supposed to prevent creating transactions that don't get accepted
like in this traceback:
```
broadcast_transaction error [DO NOT TRUST THIS MESSAGE]: "RPCError(1, 'the transaction was rejected by network rules.\\n\\ninsufficient fee, rejecting replacement ceeaef5ac7f82286e42ebd530e965fa4c7a6c11933d6b89d6d6f0ee2c69db839; new feerate 0.00001109 BTC/kvB <= old feerate 0.00001110 BTC/kvB
```
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only adds a new automated test to Electrum. It does not change any production wallet code. The test checks that when a user adds extra outputs to an existing RBF (replace-by-fee) transaction, the new transaction's fee is high enough to be accepted by Bitcoin network relay rules. The commit message mentions a past broadcast error where a replacement transaction was rejected because its fee rate was not higher than the original's. This is a regression test, not a fix.

Recommended action

No action required for security; treat as normal test coverage improvement. If reviewing the underlying RBF batching feature, verify that production code already enforces sufficient fee increases before this test was added.

Security signals we found

01

Regression test for RBF replacement fee policy

02

References real-world broadcast rejection due to insufficient fee increase

03

No production code change

Risk score

Why this scored 12/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 8/10
Evidence quality 4/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.