FB 2/N: Feebump coins tracking

[darosior]

Do we want a watchonly wallet? To use scantxoutset? Or even a non-watchonly Bitcoin wallet?

[JSwambo]

The feebump wallet should be a regular (non-watchonly) Bitcoin wallet because the WT has the private keys and needs to use them to sign additional feebump inputs

Edit: now thinking about signing and bumping the fee... I think we'll need to do this through revault_tx not through bitcoind rpc... if so then feebumping wallet should be watchonly.

[darosior]

You don't need bitcoind to sign? We already discussed whether we'd have to introduce a bitcoind wallet. Do you think now that it'll be necessary? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Le vendredi 17 décembre 2021 à 5:14 PM, JSwambo ***@***.***> a écrit :

…

The feebump wallet should be a regular (non-watchonly) Bitcoin wallet because the WT has the private keys and needs to use them to sign additional feebump inputs — Reply to this email directly, [view it on GitHub](#8 (comment)), or [unsubscribe](https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLK3F6PAP73JHO2XTVDXCDURNOV7ANCNFSM5FLN6PEA). Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for [iOS](https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675) or [Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub). You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[JSwambo]

No I don't think so... see edit ^

[JSwambo]

Okay after further digging I think we do! I believe we should create the replacement Cancel Transaction with new inputs, then use walletprocesspsbt

[darosior]

Why? As previously discussed, using a bitcoind wallet presents some drawbacks and i'd like to avoid it as much as possible.
For your interest and if walletprocesspsbt was the reason why you wanted a bitcoind wallet, "processing" a PSBT is the main purpose of revault_tx...