At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I know that when I first did this, my upper bound came out too low, and I just used the total balance as an upper bound, which worked. I just redid
it using their upper bound estimate, and it was fine - the upper bound
was above what was needed. Perhaps ... dunno - don't have my original
anymore. Have you printed the upper bound to see if it looks reasonable?
well to be honest, I didnt even get that far. I was putting the code in and I spent problably 10 minutes looking at it and trying to justify the algorithm before I gave up and came here. I feel like it wouldn't actually matter what I use; it would work either way. I just wanted someone else's opinion. Thanks for that :)