Skip to content

Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743

Open
Open
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743

Description

@optout21
optout21
opened on Nov 22, 2023

Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.

Current setup

A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.

New use cases

V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.

Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).

Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.

Some concerns

  • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
  • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
  • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
  • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
  • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
  • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
  • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
  • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
    Skip to content
    Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
    Open
    Open
    Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
    Description
    @optout21
    optout21
    opened on Nov 22, 2023
    Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
    Current setup
    A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
    New use cases
    V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
    Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
    Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
    Some concerns
    • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
    • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
    • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
    • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
    • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
    • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
    • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
    • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    No one assigned
      Labels
      No labels
      No labels
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
      Open
      Open
      Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
      Description
      @optout21
      optout21
      opened on Nov 22, 2023
      Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
      Current setup
      A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
      New use cases
      V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
      Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
      Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
      Some concerns
      • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
      • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
      • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
      • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
      • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
      • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
      • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
      • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
        Skip to content
        Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
        Open
        Open
        Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
        Description
        @optout21
        optout21
        opened on Nov 22, 2023
        Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
        Current setup
        A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
        New use cases
        V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
        Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
        Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
        Some concerns
        • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
        • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
        • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
        • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
        • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
        • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
        • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
        • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        No one assigned
          Labels
          No labels
          No labels
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
          Open
          Open
          Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
          Description
          @optout21
          optout21
          opened on Nov 22, 2023
          Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
          Current setup
          A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
          New use cases
          V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
          Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
          Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
          Some concerns
          • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
          • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
          • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
          • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
          • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
          • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
          • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
          • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
            Skip to content
            Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
            Open
            Open
            Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
            Description
            @optout21
            optout21
            opened on Nov 22, 2023
            Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
            Current setup
            A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
            New use cases
            V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
            Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
            Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
            Some concerns
            • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
            • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
            • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
            • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
            • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
            • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
            • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
            • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            No one assigned
              Labels
              No labels
              No labels
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
})();
Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) · Issue #2743 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding) #2743
              Open
              Open
              Support multiple funding transaction (candidates) per channel (Splicing, Dual Funding)#2743
              Description
              @optout21
              optout21
              opened on Nov 22, 2023
              Currently one channel has one funding transaction, this is expected to change with Dual funding and Splicing use cases. This issue is created to collect some of the concerns.
              Current setup
              A channel has one funding transaction, initially unset. During the channel opening process it gets set, then confirmed. Afterwards it does not change during the lifetime of the channel.
              New use cases
              V2 channel opening with RBF. It is possible to RBF a pending funding transaction, so it is possible to have two -- or more -- funding candidates. It is not known which will confirm first.
              Spicing. In the transitional period before the new spliced funding transaction is confirmed, both old and new funding has to be kept. Only the new one can confirm, but at close both have to be attempted to closed (it is not known if old has been already spend by the new or not yet).
              Splicing plus RBF. A combination of the above.
              Some concerns
              • Currently channel has several fields keeping info about the funding transaction, these should be grouped for convenience. See Group channel funding transaction fields (small refactor) [splicing] #2736.
              • An additional structure for holding multiple funding TX candidates should be introduced. Probably a map where ID is TXID. It should be persisted.
              • When transactions get confirmed, we need to check against all candidates (not just against the single funding TX)
              • The existing field(s) should be kept and used for already locked funding TX, and for pending in the case of V1 opening. For V2 opening and Splicing, funding candidates should be kept in the new map.
              • Serialization b/w compatibility: the serialization of existing funding TX fields should not change. The new map should be serialized separately.
              • Support reorg. With a chain reorg it is possible that a confirmed transaction becomes unconfirmed. This is handled, and it should be handled similarly for multiple candidates.
              • Exclusivity, what happens with other candidates if one gets locked? In case of RBF only one of the candidates can confirm, but the others still need to be kept around for the case of an eventual reorg. It's also more robust not to assume that only one can get locked.
              • Channel closing: In case of Splicing, the pending candidate(s) needs to be considered, but the old funding tx as well (e.g. if the new funding was broadcast but rejected and will never lock).
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions