Skip to content
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

Cpfp followups #117

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 13, 2021
Merged

Cpfp followups #117

merged 5 commits into from
Dec 13, 2021

Conversation

darosior
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

danielabrozzoni and others added 5 commits December 6, 2021 16:48
Thresh() is not really necessary as we only have keys, and multi()
can be imported without too much hassle in Core
The CPFP may have multiple inputs, one of those must (obviously) be
the tx that needs CPFP. The builder will try to meet a certain package
feerate. We only create a change bigger than 10_000 sats (arbitrary
number), if we don't create a change we send everything to fees and
place a OP_RETURN.

Co-Authored-By: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
Being constructed from a slice of CpfpableTransactions causes issues
since RevaultTransactions can't be made into trait objects.
@danielabrozzoni
Copy link
Contributor

ACK 2f36f63

darosior added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2021
2870c7b Support CPFP transactions (Daniela Brozzoni)
0332002 Use multi() in the CPFP descriptor (Daniela Brozzoni)

Pull request description:

  The CPFP will have multiple inputs, one of those must (obviously) be
  the tx that needs CPFP. The builder will try to meet a certain package
  feerate. We only create a change bigger than 10_000 sats (arbitrary
  number), if we don't create a change we send everything to fees and
  place a OP_RETURN.

ACKs for top commit:
  darosior:
    ACK 2870c7b -- because of the followup (#117)

Tree-SHA512: 64305e66562b25a89f3d7b2bf443df2799efd4311a97c26fbced5d391e18e6831ad922650b39a9eb5d8d4fffe66db0a46183b5da45085562fb9722ef7f1a0693
@darosior darosior merged commit 999a311 into revault:master Dec 13, 2021
darosior added a commit to revault/revaultd that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2021
580ba22 qa: increase HTTP timeout for bitcoind requests (Antoine Poinsot)
19ce7a2 CPFP related code cleanups (Antoine Poinsot)
bcebe0a qa: extend CPFP tests (Antoine Poinsot)
7050a96 qa: enhance the CPFP test (Antoine Poinsot)
978d3dd bitcoind: base the decision to CPFP on each tx individual feerate (Antoine Poinsot)
b5ae52f bitcoind: batch the Unvault and Spend CPFP txs (Antoine Poinsot)
f066dbf bitcoind: reorganize code in cpfp_package() (Antoine Poinsot)
f3b92aa bitcoind: abort CPFP, don't crash on listunspent breakage (Antoine Poinsot)
6bbefc7 Update revault_tx (Antoine Poinsot)
03501e5 bitcoind: batch the spends CPFP (Antoine Poinsot)
00e9a83 bitcoind: don't CPFP already confirmed Unvault transactions (Antoine Poinsot)
113db34 bitcoind: remove needless call to 'finalizepsbt' (Antoine Poinsot)
afea49f bitcoind: take and return a Psbt in sign_psbt (Antoine Poinsot)

Pull request description:

  This is a followup to #302, fixing inconsistencies and cleaning up a bit.
  The revault_tx counterpart is at revault/revault_tx#117 .

ACKs for top commit:
  danielabrozzoni:
    ACK 580ba22

Tree-SHA512: d11c2099b347584a0ffc4942cc53d7c1caeb324913149d4386fb5cd9a30336a4e15ddb5f2c820c953cd934771c08fb56ff29d1bfe41debbae4b878bf25ed8bfe
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants