Contribute funding inputs on accepting dual-funded channel by dunxen · Pull Request #3735 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen · 2025-04-15T11:48:51Z

We introduce a ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution
method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound
dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-04-15T11:48:54Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

wpaulino · 2025-06-12T19:17:12Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

dunxen · 2025-06-13T05:36:17Z

Looks like this needs a rebase after #3637

ugh right!

wpaulino · 2025-06-13T18:19:31Z

Don't the first three commits need to be dropped?

dunxen · 2025-06-17T10:59:18Z

Just needs node reload tests but it can still get some initial review.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Wouldn't this already be covered by begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction?

Oh indeed. begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction was modified to include that in a previous pre-splicing work. Thanks.

Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

Regarding locktime, maybe we just throw it in UnfundedChannelContext or directly in PendingV2Channel? Using FundingNegotiation may not be ideal given it has a variant (AwaitingSignatures) where the locktime is no longer available, even though we'd never have a PendingV2Channel in that state.

As mentioned offline, I added a fixup to store the locktime directly in PendingV2Channel. Using UnfundedChannelContext won't work since it is used for v1 channels, too. I considered passing the locktime to the relevant method (get_open_channel_v2) after constructing the channel. However, that method is called in some other places, too.

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T17:11:57Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


Maybe let the user optionally provide a change address along with their inputs?

wpaulino · 2025-06-18T18:34:29Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-21T00:00:28Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-23T00:01:07Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-06-24T06:13:08Z

Since the FundingTransactionReadyForSigning work is also relevant for splicing (though it will need some minor additional changes), maybe we should split it up from the inbound contribution work, so that we can unblock testing on the splicing side once #3736 lands.

Agreed. Apologies for the late response. Back home now. I'll split it into a separate PR and we can discuss changes.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-25T00:02:04Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

codecov · 2025-06-27T07:28:16Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96133% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (9150bc8) to head (fe940d6).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/dual_funding_tests.rs	97.96%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	90.90%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3735 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.32% 89.61% +0.29% 
==========================================
Files 180 181 +1 Lines 138176 138525 +349 Branches 138176 138525 +349 ==========================================
+ Hits 123424 124141 +717 + Misses 12137 11774 -363 + Partials 2615 2610 -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`33.65% <10.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
tests	`89.00% <96.96%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T00:01:09Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

dunxen · 2025-10-18T14:54:54Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

jkczyz · 2025-10-20T15:21:18Z

Sorry, long time. This needs a super rebase. I see #1621 was closed. Do we need another issue for dual-funding tracking?

Yeah, probably best to use a fresh issue than re-open an older one that's accumulated the splicing work.

jkczyz · 2025-11-11T22:41:48Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

dunxen · 2025-11-16T20:58:09Z

Rebased! Will take over the PR from here 🫡

Thanks, @jkczyz! I will be able to give some review this week. Blocked out some space for it.

dunxen · 2025-11-17T20:15:58Z

Just looked through the docs/comments and hope they are still valid since this PR was opened.

…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:10:42Z

+	/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
+	/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness


This actually isn't accurate. The contribution is given by our_funding_satoshis, while funding_inputs must have enough for that plus any fees. The remaining value should go to change. Updated the docs accordingly.

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:13:27Z

 script_pubkey: funding.get_funding_redeemscript().to_p2wsh(),
 };

+ // Optionally add change output


Updated to use the new FundingNegotiationContext::into_interactive_tx_constructor. However, since this consumes self, I had to make FundingNegotiationContext an Option. Also, added some helpers to avoid unwrap. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided for locktime, but maybe the two Options can be replaced with the FundingNegotiation enum or a dedicated one. @wpaulino Thoughts?

jkczyz · 2025-11-20T17:31:14Z

 };

+ // Optionally add change output
+ let change_script = signer_provider.get_destination_script(context.channel_keys_id)


We can now run through the case where the acceptor contributes to an inbound channel, with either more value in inputs, or less value, leading to a different `tx_signatures` exchange order. We also cannot use dummy P2WPKH funding inputs and witnesses anymore as `funding_transaction_signed` internally verifies signatures. Hence, we create external keypairs that we can create outputs for and sign with.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-24T00:01:12Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-26T00:01:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-11-29T00:01:02Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-01T00:01:44Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-03T00:02:13Z

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-06T00:01:00Z

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-08T00:01:45Z

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-10T00:02:39Z

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:26:59Z

+ funding_negotiation_context: None,
+ interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),


Would be nice to reuse FundingNegotiation here, but it seems unclear whether the last AwaitingSignatures state can be adapted to the initial dual funding state

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:33:18Z

+
+// TODO(dual_funding): Use real node and API for creating V2 channels as initiator when available,
+// instead of manually constructing messages.
+fn do_test_v2_channel_establishment(session: V2ChannelEstablishmentTestSession) {


Let's just drop these until we can use the real API?

wpaulino · 2025-12-10T18:35:17Z

+	pub fn accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution(
+ &self, temporary_channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey,
+ user_channel_id: u128, config_overrides: Option<ChannelConfigOverrides>,
+ our_funding_contribution: Amount, funding_inputs: Vec<FundingTxInput>,


We're also allowed to include outputs, behaving similar to the mixed mode splice, so maybe it's worth waiting until we figure that out in #4261 so we can adopt it here?

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-07-03T20:35:14Z

Hi @dunxen,

Thanks for your contributions to rust-lightning!

After too many struggles with bugs, outages, contributor bans, and, finally, a multi-week CI ban, the rust-lightning project is moving off of GitHub for day-to-day development.

You can still file issues and access the git tree here, but PRs will now take place exclusively at https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/. As such, this PR has been migrated to https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pulls/3735

If you log in using GitHub (or otherwise link your GitHub account from https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/user/settings/security), ownership of your PRs, issues, and comments will automatically transfer. To push updates to this PR, you'll need to use git push git@gitea-ssh.bitcoin.ninja:lightningdevkit/rust-lightning YOUR_LOCAL_COMMIT_OR_BRANCH:dunxen/2025-04-contributeinputs. This may require a permissions change - if it doesn't work initially just leave a comment and we'll get you access.

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from e22fa33 to fabbf86Compare April 25, 2025 18:20

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 4 times, most recently from c42f3d0 to 186d66bCompare May 12, 2025 10:51

dunxen mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025
Introduce interactive signing state flags for funded states. #3637
Merged

dunxen added the Dual-funding label May 16, 2025

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 186d66b to c7d8e89Compare May 19, 2025 11:07

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c7d8e89 to 540b8a7Compare June 12, 2025 08:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 540b8a7 to 94bf848Compare June 13, 2025 05:35

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 67504f0 to 9f276d8Compare June 17, 2025 10:40

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from 9f276d8 to 60f58b1Compare June 17, 2025 16:26

wpaulino reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz self-requested a review June 18, 2025 18:19

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889
Merged

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch 2 times, most recently from 9a2a5ce to 8006303Compare June 27, 2025 07:19

wpaulino assigned jkczyz Sep 25, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from c059e03 to fe940d6Compare November 11, 2025 22:40

jkczyz unassigned wpaulino Nov 12, 2025

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Nov 13, 2025

dunxenand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 11:30

Allow passing funding inputs when manually accepting a dual-funded ch…
f312357
…annel We introduce a `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel_with_contribution` method allowing contributing to the overall channel capacity of an inbound dual-funded channel by contributing inputs.

f - allow change script
e247652

jkczyz reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from fe940d6 to ed4d8a5Compare November 20, 2025 17:32

jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino November 20, 2025 17:33

jkczyzand others added 2 commits November 20, 2025 19:30

f - store funding_tx_locktime in PendingV2Channel
ac8803c

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-04-contributeinputs branch from ed4d8a5 to 9a04ed0Compare November 21, 2025 23:06

wpaulino reviewed Dec 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks

ldk-reviews-bot closed this Jul 3, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this to Done in Weekly Goals Jul 3, 2026

		/// portion of the channel value. Our contribution will be calculated as the total value of these
		/// inputs minus the fees we need to cover for the interactive funding transaction. The witness

		funding_negotiation_context: None,
		interactive_tx_constructor: Some(interactive_tx_constructor),

Uh oh!

Conversation

dunxen commented Apr 15, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 15, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wpaulino commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Jun 13, 2025

Uh oh!

wpaulino commented Jun 13, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jkczyzNov 21, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wpaulino commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 21, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented Jun 27, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Oct 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jkczyz commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

jkczyz commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Nov 16, 2025

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Nov 24, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Nov 29, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 1, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 3, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 6, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 8, 2025

dunxen commented Apr 15, 2025•
edited
Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 15, 2025•
edited
Loading

jkczyzNov 21, 2025•
edited
Loading

codecovBot commented Jun 27, 2025•
edited
Loading

dunxen commented Apr 15, 2025•
edited
Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 15, 2025•
edited
Loading