Skip to content

Conversation

@t-bast
Copy link
Member

@t-bast t-bast commented Mar 4, 2025

We previously only allowed the opener to RBF a dual-funded channel. This is not consistent with splicing, where both peers can initiate RBF. There is no technical reason to restrict the channel creation, we can allow the non-initiator to RBF if they wish to do so.

The only subtlety is in the case where there is a liquidity purchase. In that case we want the opener to be the only one allowed to RBF to guarantee that we keep the liquidity purchase (since the initiator is the only one that can purchase liquidity).

See lightning/bolts#1236

We previously only allowed the opener to RBF a dual-funded channel.
This is not consistent with splicing, where both peers can initiate
RBF. There is no technical reason to restrict the channel creation,
we can allow the non-initiator to RBF if they wish to do so.

The only subtlety is in the case where there is a liquidity purchase.
In that case we want the opener to be the only one allowed to RBF to
guarantee that we keep the liquidity purchase (since the initiator is
the only one that can purchase liquidity).
@t-bast t-bast force-pushed the dual-funding-non-initiator-rbf branch from d3a494d to aa8b6f0 Compare September 4, 2025 12:20
@t-bast t-bast marked this pull request as ready for review September 5, 2025 14:28
@t-bast t-bast requested a review from pm47 September 5, 2025 14:28
Copy link
Member

@pm47 pm47 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@t-bast t-bast merged commit f93d02f into master Sep 5, 2025
1 check passed
@t-bast t-bast deleted the dual-funding-non-initiator-rbf branch September 5, 2025 15:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants