Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it. Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB. Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue. Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that? I don't get its relevance to my reply about checking whether it's the transaction or server-side issue. Anyways, unlike what you said, most nodes actually accept sub-1sat/vB fee transactions. It's just Electrum servers represent a bare minimum of the Application 1win nodes so Electrum users will more likely randomly connect to a server that doesn't use the new minrelayfee standard if the server is not manually selected. About the possibility of slightly miscalculated fee rate, before sub-1sat/vB is standard, clients had to calculate it with at least 1sat/vB fee rate and not <0.99, there shouldn't be any error on its calculation at all or it'll just be rejected. Now that the minrelayfee is lower, clients may have missed if there's an issue with their fee rounding since 0.99sat/vB will not be rejected by most nodes when testing.
Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it. Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB. Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue. Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that? I don't get its relevance to my reply about checking whether it's the transaction or server-side issue. Anyways, unlike what you said, most nodes actually accept sub-1sat/vB fee transactions. It's just Electrum servers represent a bare minimum of the Application 1win nodes so Electrum users will more likely randomly connect to a server that doesn't use the new minrelayfee standard if the server is not manually selected. About the possibility of slightly miscalculated fee rate, before sub-1sat/vB is standard, clients had to calculate it with at least 1sat/vB fee rate and not <0.99, there shouldn't be any error on its calculation at all or it'll just be rejected. Now that the minrelayfee is lower, clients may have missed if there's an issue with their fee rounding since 0.99sat/vB will not be rejected by most nodes when testing.

Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it. Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB. Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue. Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that? I don't get its relevance to my reply about checking whether it's the transaction or server-side issue. Anyways, unlike what you said, most nodes actually accept sub-1sat/vB fee transactions. It's just Electrum servers represent a bare minimum of the Application 1win nodes so Electrum users will more likely randomly connect to a server that doesn't use the new minrelayfee standard if the server is not manually selected. About the possibility of slightly miscalculated fee rate, before sub-1sat/vB is standard, clients had to calculate it with at least 1sat/vB fee rate and not <0.99, there shouldn't be any error on its calculation at all or it'll just be rejected. Now that the minrelayfee is lower, clients may have missed if there's an issue with their fee rounding since 0.99sat/vB will not be rejected by most nodes when testing.

Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it. Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB. Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue. Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that? I don't get its relevance to my reply about checking whether it's the transaction or server-side issue. Anyways, unlike what you said, most nodes actually accept sub-1sat/vB fee transactions. It's just Electrum servers represent a bare minimum of the Application 1win nodes so Electrum users will more likely randomly connect to a server that doesn't use the new minrelayfee standard if the server is not manually selected. About the possibility of slightly miscalculated fee rate, before sub-1sat/vB is standard, clients had to calculate it with at least 1sat/vB fee rate and not <0.99, there shouldn't be any error on its calculation at all or it'll just be rejected. Now that the minrelayfee is lower, clients may have missed if there's an issue with their fee rounding since 0.99sat/vB will not be rejected by most nodes when testing.