Add a unit test that passes a required utxo to the coin selection
algorithm that is less than the required spend. This tests that we get
that utxo included as well as tests that the rest of the coin selection
algorithm code also executes (i.e., that we do not short circuit
incorrectly).
If the required UTXO set is already bigger (including fees) than the
amount required for the transaction we can return early, no need to go
through the BNB algorithm or random selection.
What set_single_recipient does turns out to be useful with multiple
recipients.
Effectively, set_single_recipient was simply creating a change
output that was arbitrarily required to be the only output.
But what if you want to send excess funds to one address but still have
additional recipients who receive a fixed value?
Generalizing this to `drain_to` simplifies the logic and removes several
error cases while also allowing new use cases.
"maintain_single_recipient" is also replaced with "allow_shrinking"
which has more general semantics.
What set_single_recipient does turns out to be useful with multiple
recipients.
Effectively, set_single_recipient was simply creating a change
output that was arbitrarily required to be the only output.
But what if you want to send excess funds to one address but still have
additional recipients who receive a fixed value?
Generalizing this to `drain_to` simplifies the logic and removes several
error cases while also allowing new use cases.
"maintain_single_recipient" is also replaced with "allow_shrinking"
which has more general semantics.
Verify the unconfirmed transactions we download against the consensus
rules. This is currently exposed as an extra `verify` feature, since it
depends on a pre-release version of `bitcoinconsensus`.
Closes#352
Verify the unconfirmed transactions we download against the consensus
rules. This is currently exposed as an extra `verify` feature, since it
depends on a pre-release version of `bitcoinconsensus`.
Closes#352
