-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
multi-Cancel revaultd #393
Conversation
b17feb4
to
5af1075
Compare
|
07c233e
to
2e2a02b
Compare
|
c2f5d24
to
ff30e56
Compare
Rebased on #394 |
a2fc9dc
to
552df8a
Compare
Manually tested with revault/revault-gui#350, seems to be fine |
552df8a
to
e764c4a
Compare
Rebased on master |
4d68ab4
to
cf176ac
Compare
The macro made it less readable for no big win, and it would become a mess with the Cancel batch.
cf176ac
to
f5ece6f
Compare
Yay, this finally passed CI, i'll re-kick it to be sure it's not flaky. |
It's not that useful as listpresignedtxs is already exercised under all conditions by the functional tests. And it would be a MAJOR pain to move it to the multi-cancel logic. As the usefulness / time spent ratio is very low, just drop it. I'd still like to add it back if possible, but definitely not with hardcoded PSBTs.
It was specific to single-Cancel logic
f5ece6f
to
ae94b9a
Compare
Updated the |
@@ -223,6 +238,29 @@ pub fn finalized_emer_txs(revaultd: &RevaultD) -> Result<Vec<BitcoinTransaction> | |||
.map_err(|e| e.into()) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
/// Get the Unvault transaction for a given vault | |||
pub fn unvault_tx( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think, in the future we should move these helpers in a scripts
or consensus
module with a struct handling the descriptors and the secp_ctx, encapsulating the derivation etc. Revaultd would store this struct and we use it like this:
revaultd.consensus.unvault_tx(&vault.derivation_index)
or revaultd.generator.unvault_tx(&derivation_index)
(I dont know yet which name)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK ae94b9a
Manually tested with the GUI
…nature 5314664 dummysigner: bump revault_tx and change api (edouard) 712a102 app: handle multiple cancel txs (edouard) ae1cccd bump revaultd (edouard) Pull request description: based on revault/revaultd#393 ACKs for top commit: edouardparis: ACK 5314664 Tree-SHA512: 30adc9198a8faf7ff0c13e9b0ca714a23252c847c93b5718cb916366eed1745ad1366575ba2624a1833ee0029d1e79f83d3ba937f1d9756fc234e19986de2930
This implements revault/practical-revault#119.
We adapt all components to use multi-Cancel:
Feedback on the new RPC API would be welcome: i preferred a list of Cancel instead of a mapping from feerate to Cancel.
We still don't chose the Cancel to broadcast depending on the fee estimation in
revault
.