CPS-???? | Coin Selection Including Native Tokens #609
Conversation
rphair
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've edited the title down for specificity and to remove redundancy.
Note there was a proposed CPS-0002 which in my opinion still represents an unresolved issue which could be reactivated: #374
In any case, when skipping over numbers due to deprecations or abandonments we don't go back and fill in the missing numbers, but would rather choose the next highest number in sequence after the last assignment.
In general I think it's good to have this as a CPS so thanks @SIDANWhatever for your submission & looking forward to discussing this in the community soon.
| @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| CPS: 2 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| CPS: 2 | |
| CPS: ? |
Please @SIDANWhatever you will also need to rename the containing directory from CPS-0002 to something non-numerical (like CPS-XXXX or CPS-token-selection.
| @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| CPS: 2 | |||
| Title: Coin Selection Approach for Post Native Tokens Era in Cardano | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Title: Coin Selection Approach for Post Native Tokens Era in Cardano | |
| Title: Coin Selection Including Native Tokens |
If author & editors are in agreement that this is more specific and less redundant ("era", "Cardano") then let's please change the document title to the current PR title.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
p.s. also @SIDANWhatever for fixing little things like this we recommend that your PR branch be set to "Allow edits by maintainers" (the general default when submitting a PR, and helpful to keep track of who recommended the changes behind each commit).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
p.s. also @SIDANWhatever for fixing little things like this we recommend that your PR branch be set to "Allow edits by maintainers" (the general default when submitting a PR, and helpful to keep track of who recommended the changes behind each commit).
Seems its only work for PR from feature branch, should I close this PR and create a new one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no need to create a new PR... you should be able to extend the permissions by following these instructions (i.e. when you view this PR's branch in the repository which pushed it, with write permission in that repository) 🤓 https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork#enabling-repository-maintainer-permissions-on-existing-pull-requests
rphair
added
the
Category: Wallets
rphair
changed the title
This seems a long withstanding issue (#232) where most offline library we got now still using sub-optimal coin selection strategy which might lead to inefficiency transaction building process.
Raising this CPS in an attempt to attract community's attraction to solve this issue with combined intelligence.