Added splicing plumbing - #736
Conversation
8489f30 to
dbf8e9b
Compare
dbf8e9b to
6de2272
Compare
6de2272 to
2b9b71d
Compare
| ) -> clnpb.DecodeResponse: | ||
| if description is not None: | ||
| raise ValueError("CLN's Decode RPC does not accept a description") | ||
| return self.decode(bolt11) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[ISSUE] Shouldn't we rather remove the decodepay method, or are we keeping it for backwards compatibility?
| @@ -1,4 +1,18 @@ | |||
| mod canonical; | |||
| #[allow(dead_code)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[ISSUE] Is this dead-code or should it be a cfg(experimental-splicing) guard?
| @@ -0,0 +1,2406 @@ | |||
| use super::canonical::canonical_json_bytes; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[ISSUE] This file feels very LLM-generated to be honest, which is fine, but LLMs tend to just open code anything, and this feels like it could be much more concise if we didn't reimplement the PSBT serialization / deserialization ourselves. It'd be a win for maintainability.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq, Serialize, Deserialize)] | ||
| pub struct NormalizedRpcAuth { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[ISSUE] Having some trouble understanding the RpcAuth related things in the splice persistence stuff. What is this for?
|
Sorry for the |
2 participants
Rationale
This PR prepares Greenlight for splicing support without waiting for the VLS side of things. This establishes the CLN API, binding, persistence, and policy boundaries needed for later signer integration.
What Changed
Trade-offs
experimental-splicingCargo feature but cannot complete until VLS provides the required signing proofs.Handling PBSTs
Greenlight links each splice PSBT to its splice session during
SpliceInitand records whether funding and signing were authorized. The signer rejects it unless the link and signing approval are present. Unrelated PSBTs remain outside splice handling and follow the existing signer policy.