-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 150
Zero-fee commitments support #660
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
2508760
27fba6a
c2696ce
25381e6
016e64b
af891fb
3d6d8ba
88714c3
7ed149b
57e08ac
b943349
679e9f4
34eeb06
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ | |
| ## Compatibility Notes | ||
| - Pending JIT-channel payments created before upgrading may fail after upgrade because the | ||
| prior LSPS2 fee-limit state stored in `PaymentKind::Bolt11Jit` is not migrated. | ||
| - Usage of anchor channels now requires an Esplora or Electrum chain source that supports | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why do we require
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Further above we decided against adding a separate knob dedicated to 0FC channels. This means that when we turn on anchor channels, 0FC channels can be negotiated against any peer that supports them, so the corresponding chain source should support |
||
| `submitpackage`, or a Bitcoin Core RPC/REST chain source against Bitcoin Core v29 and above. | ||
|
|
||
| # 0.7.0 - Dec. 3, 2025 | ||
| This seventh minor release introduces numerous new features, bug fixes, and API improvements. In particular, it adds support for channel Splicing, Async Payments, as well as sourcing chain data from a Bitcoin Core REST backend. | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | ||
| #!/bin/bash | ||
|
benthecarman marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||
| set -eox pipefail | ||
|
|
||
| # Our Esplora-based tests require `electrs` binaries. Here, we | ||
| # download the code, build the binaries, and export their location | ||
| # via `ELECTRS_EXE`/`BITCOIND_EXE` which will be used by the | ||
| # `electrsd`/`bitcoind` crates in our tests. | ||
|
|
||
| HOST_PLATFORM="$(rustc --version --verbose | grep "host:" | awk '{ print $2 }')" | ||
| ELECTRS_GIT_REPO="https://github.com/tankyleo/blockstream-electrs.git" | ||
| ELECTRS_TAG="2026-05-26-electrum-submit-package" | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we do this, we should use a specific commit revision, not point to a general branch.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is indeed my intention, and I believe the script currently does this. See the tag here: https://github.com/tankyleo/blockstream-electrs/releases/tag/2026-05-26-electrum-submit-package
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, sorry, I took |
||
| if [[ "$HOST_PLATFORM" != *linux* && "$HOST_PLATFORM" != *darwin* ]]; then | ||
| printf "\n\n" | ||
| echo "Unsupported platform: $HOST_PLATFORM Exiting.." | ||
| exit 1 | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| DL_TMP_DIR=$(mktemp -d) | ||
| trap 'rm -rf -- "$DL_TMP_DIR"' EXIT | ||
|
|
||
| pushd "$DL_TMP_DIR" | ||
| git clone --branch $ELECTRS_TAG --depth 1 $ELECTRS_GIT_REPO blockstream-electrs | ||
| cd blockstream-electrs | ||
| RUSTFLAGS="" cargo build | ||
| export ELECTRS_EXE="$DL_TMP_DIR"/blockstream-electrs/target/debug/electrs | ||
| chmod +x "$ELECTRS_EXE" | ||
| popd | ||
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.
why do we add cargo cleans? won't that screw up the cache?
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 was hitting a "disk space exhausted error" on that job in CI, wanted to see if this helps, at the cost of individual CI taking longer yes.
cargo buildandcargo testseem to rebuild from scratch, no shared artifacts.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 presume this is because we are building electrs in CI. Since its cached now, can you remove the cargo cleans? Maybe just put a clean after you upload the electrs binary