-
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
RBF our CPFP transactions #333
Conversation
I think we should rework |
Rebased, just waiting on revault/revault_tx#119 to be merged to point at revault_tx's master |
d564f5f
to
3ab5eba
Compare
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 still need to run the tests locally, but the code looks good :)
let derived_cpfp_descriptor = revaultd | ||
.derived_cpfp_descriptor(my_listunspent[i].derivation_index.expect("Must be here")); | ||
match tx.cpfp_txin(&derived_cpfp_descriptor) { | ||
match tx.cpfp_txin(cpfp_descriptor, &revaultd.secp_ctx) { | ||
Some(txin) => txins.push(txin), | ||
None => { | ||
log::error!("No CPFP txin for tx '{}'", tx.txid()); | ||
return Ok(()); |
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.
Btw this deactivates the CPFP altogether if some txin is not found. Maybe we just want to avoid cpfping that specific transaction and CPFPing the others?
(Not necessarily to be fixed in this PR)
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.
Yeah i noted that but didn't want to address it here (it'd also (for now) not happen with a transaction we'd have created).
ACK ae055f2 |
No description provided.