The fee can be set by the user in SilentDragon in the bottom left of the Send screen. It defaults to 0.0001 and labeled as Miner Fee. What's in SD can probably be ported over to SDL.
The fee can be set by the user in SilentDragon in the bottom left of the Send screen. It defaults to 0.0001 and labeled as Miner Fee. What's in SD can probably be ported over to SDL.
I checked SDL and the fee field is already there. It's not editable and likely has none of the code to handle a custom fee like SD. SD warns a custom fee is being on the send confirmation popup.
I checked SDL and the fee field is already there. It's not editable and likely has none of the code to handle a custom fee like SD. SD warns a custom fee is being on the send confirmation popup.
It seems that we should unify SD+SDL to both be able to use a custom fee. It's not clear if SDL internals like silentdragonlite-cli or lightwalletd need to change to support this.
It seems that we should unify SD+SDL to both be able to use a custom fee. It's not clear if SDL internals like silentdragonlite-cli or lightwalletd need to change to support this.
we have this in the dev branch now: 49d587cd42 i think the issue can be closed
we have this in the dev branch now: https://git.hush.is/hush/SilentDragonLite/commit/49d587cd4290594d836c3cb8d3af1574ad1b47f7 i think the issue can be closed
Let user configure transaction (tx) fee in wallet GUI
How will a user know what non-default fee they should use?
The fee can be set by the user in SilentDragon in the bottom left of the Send screen. It defaults to 0.0001 and labeled as Miner Fee. What's in SD can probably be ported over to SDL.
I checked SDL and the fee field is already there. It's not editable and likely has none of the code to handle a custom fee like SD. SD warns a custom fee is being on the send confirmation popup.
It seems that we should unify SD+SDL to both be able to use a custom fee. It's not clear if SDL internals like silentdragonlite-cli or lightwalletd need to change to support this.
we have this in the dev branch now:
49d587cd42
i think the issue can be closed