AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 37 Bitcoin

wallet: rbf: estimate base tx size before stripping

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by f321x

73/100 · Adequate
wallet: rbf: estimate base tx size before stripping

Estimate the size of a base tx before stripping its signatures
so the lower bound feerate used to calculate the fee for the rbf
transaction doesn't underestimate the feerate of the base tx.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a fee-calculation bug in Electrum's Replace-By-Fee (RBF) feature. Previously, the wallet estimated the size of the original transaction after removing its signatures. Because removing signatures makes the transaction look smaller than it really is, the wallet could set the new RBF transaction's fee too low, potentially causing the replacement transaction to be rejected by the Bitcoin network for not meeting the required fee rate. The fix estimates the original transaction size before stripping signatures, so the replacement fee is calculated more accurately.

Recommended action

Users relying on RBF/bump-fee should upgrade to a version containing this commit. Developers should review whether any other fee/size estimates in the codebase are taken after stripping signatures or witnesses.

Security signals we found

01

Fee estimation accuracy bug in RBF path

02

Transaction size computed after signature stripping

03

Potential replacement transaction rejected due to insufficient fee

04

No explicit security framing by vendor

Risk score

Why this scored 37/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 7/10
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.