Introduce `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event #3889

dunxen · 2025-06-24T12:12:50Z

Cherry-picked from #3735 as it is relevant to splicing and will unblock testing after #3736 lands.

The FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event requests witnesses from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively constructed transaction.

The client calls ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed to provide the witnesses to LDK.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-24T12:12:52Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

jkczyz · 2025-06-24T16:16:04Z

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

+	/// After signing, call [`ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed`] with the (partially) signed
+	/// funding transaction.
+	///
+	/// Generated in [`ChannelManager`] message handling.


Could you add a "Failure Behavior and Persistence" section as is done for other events?

Yeah and it makes sense to replay this after failure to handle, but not to persist across restarts as the new channel/splice won't be persisted before signing, anyway.

Looks like this needs to be added still.

Still needs to be done

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

jkczyz · 2025-06-24T16:31:27Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

+		let witnesses: Vec<_> = transaction
+			.input
+			.into_iter()
+			.filter_map(|input| if input.witness.is_empty() { None } else { Some(input.witness) })
+			.collect();


Don't have a strong opinion here, but seems we can avoid this by passing the Transaction through and only collecting witnesses when we are ready to construct TxSignatures.

Cool, yeah will look at changing this after fixups.

Is this done?

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

codecov · 2025-06-25T11:08:53Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.24221% with 172 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.67%. Comparing base (bb48bbc) to head (0dbc64f).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs	81.26%	77 Missing and 9 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	16.88%	59 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	50.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/events/mod.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3889      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.93%   88.67%   -0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         174      173       -1     
  Lines      123875   124257     +382     
  Branches   123875   124257     +382     
==========================================
+ Hits       110169   110191      +22     
- Misses      11253    11673     +420     
+ Partials     2453     2393      -60

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`?`
tests	`88.67% <70.24%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️

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 · 2025-06-26T12:13:27Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino @optout21! 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 · 2025-06-26T12:13:29Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino @optout21! 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.

optout21

Looks good!

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-06-28T12:14:21Z

🔔 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 · 2025-06-30T12:15:10Z

🔔 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.

jkczyz

Not sure if there was a problem rebasing, but some comments that had been marked resolved weren't fixed.

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

dunxen · 2025-07-01T08:08:04Z

Not sure if there was a problem rebasing, but some comments that had been marked resolved weren't fixed.

Yeah, they got lost on a rebase and somehow lost the commit. Rebased to get the one CI fix in. Fixing.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-07-02T12:15:51Z

🔔 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 · 2025-07-05T00:01:03Z

🔔 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 · 2025-07-07T00:01:47Z

🔔 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.

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

dunxen · 2025-07-17T09:59:25Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -7605,6 +7586,188 @@ where
 		}
 	}

+	fn verify_interactive_tx_signatures(


Needs some clean up and tests but pushed it for some review.

Is test coverage for this actually feasible yet?

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

dunxen

Pushed latest fixups. Comments left on remaining ones.

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

wpaulino · 2025-07-23T18:00:21Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -7605,6 +7586,188 @@ where
 		}
 	}

+	fn verify_interactive_tx_signatures(


Is test coverage for this actually feasible yet?

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

wpaulino

Almost there, the commit history could be cleaned up a bit to not have code added in one commit that gets removed in a later one

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

wpaulino · 2025-07-28T17:26:10Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

+						user_channel_id: channel.context.get_user_id(),
+					}, None));
+			} else if signing_session.local_inputs_count() == 0 {
+				pending_msg_events.push(MessageSendEvent::SendTxSignatures { node_id: counterparty_node_id, msg: msgs::TxSignatures { channel_id: channel.context.channel_id(), tx_hash: signing_session.unsigned_tx().compute_txid(), witnesses: vec![], shared_input_signature: None } });


We probably shouldn't send the message here, and should rely on either sending it after receiving a tx_signatures, sending it first as a result of funding_transaction_signed, or re-sending it on reestablish.

Yeah, this would be the case of no inputs contributed, so we'd be up first for sending (we'd have the lowest contributed input value).

So this means,

We can't send an empty tx_signatures in response to receiving a tx_signatures

funding_transaction_signed will never be called as there is nothing to sign.

Sending on re-establish will happen, but where else do we send it?

Ah I see, you're right. This looks correct then, but before sending with 0 inputs can we move the call to provide_holder_witnesses here as well?

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

dunxen · 2025-07-29T07:51:29Z

Almost there, the commit history could be cleaned up a bit to not have code added in one commit that gets removed in a later one

Thanks, I did intend to avoid that but I definitely lost track of the changes.

The `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event requests witnesses from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively constructed transaction. The client calls `ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed` to provide the witnesses to LDK. The `handle_channel_resumption` method handles resumption from both a channel re-establish and a monitor update. When the corresponding monitor update for the commitment_signed message completes, we will push the event here. We can thus only ever provide holder signatures after a monitor update has completed. We can also get rid of the reestablish code involved with `monitor_pending_tx_signatures` and remove that field too.

The return type of commitment_signed() started groing into a really long and unwieldy tuple. We introduce a dedicated enum return type for it here.

…hecks In a following commit, We'll use the contained scriptPubKeys to validate P2WPKH and P2TR key path spends and to assist in checking that signatures in provided holder witnesses use SIGHASH_ALL to prevent funds being frozen or held ransom.

LDK checks the following: * Each input spends an output that is one of P2WPKH, P2WSH, or P2TR. These were already checked by LDK when the inputs to be contributed were provided. * All signatures use the `SIGHASH_ALL` sighash type. * P2WPKH and P2TR key path spends are valid (verifies signatures) NOTE: * When checking P2WSH spends, LDK tries to decode 70-72 byte witness elements as ECDSA signatures with a sighash flag. If the internal DER-decoding fails, then LDK just assumes it wasn't a signature and carries with checks. If the element can be decoded as an ECDSA signature, the the sighash flag must be `SIGHASH_ALL`. * When checking P2TR script-path spends, LDK assumes all elements of exactly 65 bytes with the last byte matching any valid sighash flag byte are schnorr signatures and checks that the sighash type is `SIGHASH_ALL`. If the last byte is not any valid sighash flag, the element is assumed not to be a signature and is ignored. Elements of 64 bytes are not checked because if they were schnorr signatures then they would implicitly be `SIGHASH_DEFAULT` which is an alias of `SIGHASH_ALL`.

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T17:53:41Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -7832,8 +7844,7 @@ where
 			// case checks if there is a monitor persist in progress when we need to respond with our `tx_signatures`
 			// and sets it as pending.
 			if holder_tx_signatures_opt.is_some() && self.is_awaiting_initial_mon_persist() {


This should probably change to just checking holder_tx_signature_opt.is_none(), and we can debug_assert!(self.is_awaiting_initial_mon_persist()) inside. Though I think that also breaks when we have 0 inputs contributed as we immediately provide an empty set of witnesses. Maybe that logic should also happen in handle_channel_resumption instead of generating the event.

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T17:59:06Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -8628,13 +8627,7 @@ where
 							//   MUST send its tx_signatures for that funding transaction.
 						) || self.context.channel_state.is_their_tx_signatures_sent() {
 							if self.context.channel_state.is_monitor_update_in_progress() {


Let's check for presence of holder_tx_signatures instead and debug_assert!(monitor_update_in_progress) if None

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:01:44Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

+	pub fn funding_transaction_signed(
+		&self, channel_id: &ChannelId, counterparty_node_id: &PublicKey, transaction: Transaction,
+	) -> Result<(), APIError> {
+		let _persistence_guard = PersistenceNotifierGuard::notify_on_drop(self);


We should only have to persist if we have a tx_signatures message to send

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:06:48Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+		let _ = self.interactive_tx_signing_session.as_mut().and_then(|session| session.received_commitment_signed());
+		// Only build the unsigned transaction for signing if there are any holder inputs to actually sign
+		let funding_tx_opt = self.interactive_tx_signing_session.as_ref().and_then(|session|
+			session.local_inputs_count().gt(&0).then_some(session.unsigned_tx().build_unsigned_tx()));


Looks like this can be dropped now

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:10:05Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

+		let witnesses: Vec<_> = transaction
+			.input
+			.into_iter()
+			.filter_map(|input| if input.witness.is_empty() { None } else { Some(input.witness) })
+			.collect();


Is this done?

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:21:17Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

-			}
-		} else {
-			return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError {
+	pub fn funding_transaction_signed(


This change could be squashed to the first commit

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:22:11Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

-			// TODO(dual_funding): Check sig for sighash
-		}
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn is_splicing(&self) -> bool {


No longer needed?

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:44:14Z

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

+						},
+						_ => return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend is invalid") }),
+					}.map_err(|_| APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid public key") })?;
+				let sig = bitcoin::taproot::Signature::from_slice(&witness[0]).map_err(|_| APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid signature") })?;


rustfmt doesn't like inlined macro calls like this, it basically won't format any of it. Here's a diff where I fixed all of them:

diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs b/lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs index 35a15cea0..ed38b9667 100644 --- a/lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs +++ b/lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs @@ -550,9 +550,8 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { 'inputs: for ((input_idx, input), witness) in script_pubkeys.zip(witnesses) { if witness.is_empty() { - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { - err: format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} is empty",), - }); + let err = format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} is empty"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); } let prev_output = input.prev_output(); @@ -561,22 +560,24 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { // P2WPKH if script_pubkey.is_p2wpkh() { if witness.len() != 2 { - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { - err: format!( - "The witness for input at index {input_idx} does not have the correct number of elements for a P2WPKH spend. Expected 2 got {}", - witness.len() - ), - }); + let err = format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} does not have the correct number of elements for a P2WPKH spend. Expected 2 got {}", witness.len()); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); } let pubkey = PublicKey::from_slice(&witness[1]).map_err(|_| { - APIError::APIMisuseError { err: - format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} contains an invalid ECDSA public key") } + let err = format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} contains an invalid ECDSA public key"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } })?; - let sig = bitcoin::ecdsa::Signature::from_slice(&witness[0]).map_err(|_| APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} contains an invalid signature") })?; + + let sig = + bitcoin::ecdsa::Signature::from_slice(&witness[0]).map_err(|_| { + let err = format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} contains an invalid signature"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } + })?; if !matches!(sig.sighash_type, EcdsaSighashType::All) { - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err: - format!("Signature does not use SIGHASH_ALL for input at index {input_idx} for P2WPKH spend") }); + let err = format!("Signature does not use SIGHASH_ALL for input at index {input_idx} for P2WPKH spend"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); } + let sighash = cache .p2wpkh_signature_hash( input_idx, @@ -593,9 +594,10 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { let msg = Message::from_digest_slice(&sighash[..]) .expect("Sighash is a SHA256 which is 32 bytes long"); secp_ctx.verify_ecdsa(&msg, &sig.signature, &pubkey).map_err(|_| { - APIError::APIMisuseError { err: - format!("Failed signature verification for input at index {input_idx} for P2WPKH spend") } + let err = format!("Failed signature verification for input at index {input_idx} for P2WPKH spend"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } })?; + continue 'inputs; } @@ -605,13 +607,24 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { Some(Ok(bitcoin::script::Instruction::PushBytes(push_bytes))) => { XOnlyPublicKey::from_slice(push_bytes.as_bytes()) }, - _ => return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend is invalid") }), - }.map_err(|_| APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid public key") })?; - let sig = bitcoin::taproot::Signature::from_slice(&witness[0]).map_err(|_| APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid signature") })?; + _ => { + let err = format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend is invalid"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }) + }, + }.map_err(|_| { + let err = format!("The scriptPubKey of the previous output for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid public key"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } + })?; + + let sig = bitcoin::taproot::Signature::from_slice(&witness[0]).map_err(|_| { + let err = format!("The witness for input at index {input_idx} for a P2TR key path spend has an invalid signature"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } + })?; if !matches!(sig.sighash_type, TapSighashType::Default | TapSighashType::All) { - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err: - format!("Signature does not use SIGHASH_DEFAULT or SIGHASH_ALL for input at index {input_idx} for P2TR key path spend") }); + let err = format!("Signature does not use SIGHASH_DEFAULT or SIGHASH_ALL for input at index {input_idx} for P2TR key path spend"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); } + let sighash = cache .taproot_key_spend_signature_hash(input_idx, &all_prevouts, sig.sighash_type) .map_err(|_| { @@ -623,8 +636,10 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { let msg = Message::from_digest_slice(&sighash[..]) .expect("Sighash is a SHA256 which is 32 bytes long"); secp_ctx.verify_schnorr(&sig.signature, &msg, &pubkey).map_err(|_| { - APIError::APIMisuseError { err: format!("Failed signature verification for input at index {input_idx} for P2TR key path spend") } - })?; + let err = format!("Failed signature verification for input at index {input_idx} for P2TR key path spend"); + APIError::APIMisuseError { err } + })?; + continue 'inputs; } @@ -641,11 +656,8 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { continue 'elements; } - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { - err: format!( - "An ECDSA signature in the witness for input {input_idx} does not use SIGHASH_ALL" - ), - }); + let err = format!("An ECDSA signature in the witness for input {input_idx} does not use SIGHASH_ALL"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); }, _ => continue 'elements, } @@ -667,10 +679,8 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { continue 'elements; } - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { - err: - format!("A (likely) Schnorr signature in the witness for input {input_idx} does not use SIGHASH_DEFAULT or SIGHASH_ALL") - }); + let err = format!("A (likely) Schnorr signature in the witness for input {input_idx} does not use SIGHASH_DEFAULT or SIGHASH_ALL"); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); }, _ => continue 'elements, } @@ -682,12 +692,12 @@ impl InteractiveTxSigningSession { false, "We don't allow contributing inputs that are not spending P2WPKH, P2WSH, or P2TR" ); - return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { - err: format!( - "Input at index {input_idx} does not spend from one of P2WPKH, P2WSH, or P2TR" - ), - }); + let err = format!( + "Input at index {input_idx} does not spend from one of P2WPKH, P2WSH, or P2TR" + ); + return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError { err }); } + Ok(()) } }

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:45:00Z

lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs

+				"Provided witness count of {} does not match required count for {} inputs",
+				witnesses.len(),
+				local_inputs_count
+			));
 		}

 		self.unsigned_tx.add_local_witnesses(witnesses.clone());
 		self.holder_tx_signatures = Some(TxSignatures {


Maybe also error if they've already been provided?

wpaulino · 2025-07-29T18:45:57Z

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

+	/// After signing, call [`ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed`] with the (partially) signed
+	/// funding transaction.
+	///
+	/// Generated in [`ChannelManager`] message handling.


Still needs to be done

dunxen added Dual-funding Splicing labels Jun 24, 2025

dunxen requested review from wpaulino, optout21 and jkczyz June 24, 2025 12:13

jkczyz reviewed Jun 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2025

Contribute funding inputs on accepting dual-funded channel #3735

Draft

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from 165d59d to 8ca6d79 Compare June 25, 2025 10:59

optout21 reviewed Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from 890633d to a1de384 Compare June 27, 2025 07:20

jkczyz reviewed Jun 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from 7df5779 to c8f981c Compare June 30, 2025 10:29

jkczyz reviewed Jun 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from c15f426 to ff1489d Compare July 1, 2025 09:18

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from ff1489d to 0a586e6 Compare July 4, 2025 07:05

wpaulino reviewed Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from a9e1a3a to 83e78d6 Compare July 14, 2025 09:34

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from 1ab3286 to b161cba Compare July 17, 2025 09:57

dunxen commented Jul 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

wpaulino reviewed Jul 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from b161cba to 4dde88e Compare July 21, 2025 17:56

dunxen commented Jul 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from 58b5381 to 50e7cf4 Compare July 23, 2025 13:45

wpaulino reviewed Jul 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch 2 times, most recently from ca2d5e0 to b45913a Compare July 28, 2025 09:01

dunxen requested review from wpaulino and jkczyz July 28, 2025 09:02

wpaulino reviewed Jul 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from b45913a to e518bd2 Compare July 29, 2025 10:58

dunxen added 4 commits July 29, 2025 14:38

Create CommitmentSignedResult enum for Channel::commitment_signed();

2c9397c

The return type of commitment_signed() started groing into a really long and unwieldy tuple. We introduce a dedicated enum return type for it here.

dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from e518bd2 to 0dbc64f Compare July 29, 2025 12:43

wpaulino reviewed Jul 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889

Conversation

dunxen commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dunxen Jun 25, 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!

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!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jun 25, 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 26, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

optout21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jkczyz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dunxen commented Jul 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 2, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 5, 2025

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Introduce `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event #3889

Introduce `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event #3889

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dunxen Jun 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jun 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dunxen commented Jul 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading