Add `FundingNeeded` event for splicing by jkczyz · Pull Request #4290 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

jkczyz · 2025-12-18T16:11:08Z

Rather than requiring the user to pass FundingTxInputs when initiating a splice, generate a FundingNeeded event once the channel has become quiescent. This simplifies error handling and UTXO / change address clean-up by consolidating it in SpliceFailed event handling.

Later, this event will be used for opportunistic contributions (i.e., when the counterparty wins quiescence or initiates), dual-funding, and RBF.

Based on #4390.

This is still fairly rough. It does not yet include any code for creating a FundingNegotiationContext from a FundingContribution. The former may need to a dedicated struct instead so that any data needed from ChannelManager or ChannelContext can be produced internally. Alternatively, that data could be included in FundingContribution, but it would need to be serializable.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-12-18T16:11:11Z

👋 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.

jkczyz · 2026-01-12T18:03:27Z

@TheBlueMatt @wpaulino Looking for some high-level feedback on the API introduced in the last commit. In summary:

User passes SpliceContribution -- which no longer contains any FundingTxInputs -- to ChannelManager::splice_channel
Upon quiescence LDK generates a FundingNeeded event which contains a FundingTemplate
User calls FundingTemplate::build or FundingTemplate::build_sync with a WalletSource or WalletSourceSync, respectively, to produce a FundingContribution
User passes FundingContribution -- which contains the FundingTxInputs -- to ChannelManager::funding_contributed
LDK validates that the FundingContribution can pay for inputs / outputs, causing LDK to either send splice_init or produce a SpliceFailed event.

The same mechanism can be used later for contributing inputs for counterparty-initiated splices or v2 channel opens since FundingTemplate and FundingContribution contains the context.

Test code still needs to be fixed up, and change_script generation will follow in another commit.

wpaulino

The API design LGTM, though there's one issue with WalletSource. One thing users need to keep in mind now is that from the moment they receive FundingNeeded, they need to act quickly to ensure the counterparty doesn't disconnect due to quiescence taking too long.

wpaulino · 2026-01-12T19:37:10Z

lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/sync.rs

 	fn list_confirmed_utxos(&self) -> Result<Vec<Utxo>, ()>;
+
+	///
+	fn select_confirmed_utxos(


Adding this here now requires implementers to satisfy this method when, in the context of anchor channels, WalletSource is only intended to be used such that we perform coin selection on behalf of the user. Ideally, we also give users the option between choosing WalletSource/CoinSelectionSource when funding channels.

Right, I guess I'm a bit confused why we can't use select_confirmed_utxos as-is? Indeed the claim_id is annoying, but we can make that either an enum across a ClaimId and some unit value describing a splice or just make it an Option. Aside from that it seems to be basically what we want.

Adding this here now requires implementers to satisfy this method when, in the context of anchor channels, WalletSource is only intended to be used such that we perform coin selection on behalf of the user. Ideally, we also give users the option between choosing WalletSource/CoinSelectionSource when funding channels.

Hmm... I see. Would a separate trait be desirable? Also, see my reply to @TheBlueMatt below.

Right, I guess I'm a bit confused why we can't use select_confirmed_utxos as-is? Indeed the claim_id is annoying, but we can make that either an enum across a ClaimId and some unit value describing a splice or just make it an Option. Aside from that it seems to be basically what we want.

The return value also isn't compatible. It contains Utxos but we also need the previous tx and sequence number as part of each FundingTxInput. Though its constructor will give a default sequence number.

We could change CoinSelection to use FundingTxInput instead of Utxo, but that would be odd for use with the anchor context.

Honestly that seems fine to me? We expect ~all of our users to want to use splicing, which implies they need to support the "return coin selection with full transactions" interface. So what if anchors throw away some of that data?

If we feel strongly about it we can add a new trait method that does return the full transactions and provide a default implementation for the current method so that those that really want to avoid always fetching the transaction data can.

Right, I don't have a strong opinion, but note that Wallet's implementation of CoinSelectionSource::select_confirmed_utxos delegates to WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos. So it might be expensive to use that abstraction. @wpaulino WDYT?

I was thinking of keeping CoinSelectionSource the same (with the full transaction data in the response, or with the default-impl-method described above) but changing WalletSource so that we don't have to fetch all previous-transactions at the start.

Yeah, Wallet wraps a WalletSource and implements CoinSelectionSource by listing all the UTXOs and selecting from them. So WalletSource's interface would remain unchanged while CoinSelection would use FundingTxInput instead of Utxo. Which I guess means FundingTemplate::build should actually take a CoinSelectionSource.

Seems reasonable to require a sequence number in the response for that as well, even for anchors?

Hmm... in WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos by adding a field to Utxto (and removing it from FundingTxInput)? Or by having the CoinSelectionSource implementation fill it in on FundingTxInput?

So WalletSource's interface would remain unchanged

Wouldn't we need a WalletSource::get_previous_transaction_for_utxo method to fetch the full tx data for the UTXOs we selected?

Hmm... in WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos by adding a field to Utxto (and removing it from FundingTxInput)? Or by having the CoinSelectionSource implementation fill it in on FundingTxInput?

ISTM we should replace Utxo with FundingTxInput since FundingTxInput has strictly more fields (it contains a Utxo!) and we'd move to returning FundingTxInput from the trait.

Wouldn't we need a WalletSource::get_previous_transaction_for_utxo method to fetch the full tx data for the UTXOs we selected?

Right, we need another method for that.

ISTM we should replace Utxo with FundingTxInput since FundingTxInput has strictly more fields (it contains a Utxo!) and we'd move to returning FundingTxInput from the trait.

The question is more what should be setting Sequence? Either:

(1) Move it to Utxo and have WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos set it since it returns Vec<Utxo>.
(2) Have CoinSelectionSource::select_confirmed_utxos set it since CoinSelection would now contain Vec<FundingTxInput>

We just can't replace Utxo with FundingTxInput in WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos since we don't want to return the previous tx there.

(1) Move it to Utxo and have WalletSource::list_confirmed_utxos set it since it returns Vec.

Presumably this. No reason to want it to not be possible in WalletSource.

Done as discussed here and offline. I'm in the middle of updating the tests, but I've pushed an update for now.

TheBlueMatt

Aside from the above which-interface question I think the API is good.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-01-15T00:28:47Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-15T00:28:48Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-17T00:29:31Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-17T00:29:32Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-19T00:29:48Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-19T00:29:50Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-20T19:20:35Z

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

+			// FIXME: Should claim_id be an Option?
+			let claim_id = ClaimId([0; 32]);


Regarding the CoinSelectionSource API, do we want to make claim_id an Option?

jkczyz · 2026-01-20T19:24:28Z

lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs

-		Amount::from_sat(383)
+		Amount::from_sat(385)
 	} else {
-		Amount::from_sat(384)
+		Amount::from_sat(386)


Seems select_confirmed_utxos_internal might be off on the change calculation because it's using the weight of the change output to compute additional fees instead of re-computing the total fees using the total weight when including a change output.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-01-21T00:30:25Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-01-21T00:30:27Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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.

codecov · 2026-01-21T19:58:51Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.52660% with 169 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.87%. Comparing base (817ab5e) to head (7155b4b).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	56.85%	82 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	65.74%	36 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/funding.rs	90.12%	13 Missing and 19 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/mod.rs	85.50%	6 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/functional_test_utils.rs	50.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/events/mod.rs	50.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/util/ser.rs	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4290      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.01%   85.87%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         156      156              
  Lines      102857   103211     +354     
  Branches   102857   103211     +354     
==========================================
+ Hits        88476    88633     +157     
- Misses      11871    12059     +188     
- Partials     2510     2519       +9

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.87% <77.52%> (-0.15%)`	⬇️

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.

TheBlueMatt

API looks good. some misc comments i noted while skimming it

lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/mod.rs

TheBlueMatt · 2026-01-21T22:30:23Z

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

+	/// Indicates that funding is needed for a channel splice or a dual-funded channel open.
+	///
+	/// The client should build a [`FundingContribution`] from the provided [`FundingTemplate`] and
+	/// pass it to [`ChannelManager::funding_contributed`].


Needs a call-out to what to do if you actually don't want to splice anymore (ie on failure)

Also maybe a note that the channel is hung waiting on our response, so we need to respond quickly.

Should they simply not handle the event? We'll be in quiescence and timeout after DISCONNECT_PEER_AWAITING_RESPONSE_TICKS. Though it seems this now inadvertently (but maybe expectedly) now applies to us sending splice_init. So maybe some renaming is in order?

Or should we expose ChannelManager::exit_quiescence?

Now that the presence of this event in the pending events queue determines whether or not a splice can be initiated, no action is needed from the user if they no longer want to splice.

TheBlueMatt · 2026-01-21T22:39:22Z

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

+			// FIXME: Should claim_id be an Option?
+			let claim_id = ClaimId([0; 32]);


TheBlueMatt · 2026-01-21T22:40:28Z

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

+
+	/// Creates a `FundingContribution` from the template by using `wallet` to perform coin
+	/// selection with the given fee rate.
+	pub fn build_sync<W: Deref>(


Can we also have a method for building with a provided set of inputs rather than going through the trait?

We could... or probably a CoinSelection so that a change output can be given.

test_cases/chanmon_consistency/any_filename_works

TheBlueMatt · 2026-01-21T22:47:47Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+		if self.context.channel_state.is_quiescent() {
+			return Err(APIError::APIMisuseError {
+				err: format!(
+					"Channel {} cannot be spliced as it is already quiescent",


Don't we want to support queuing up the splice to do afterwards?

Hmmm... this was to handle the time after we've generated FundingNeeded when we no longer have a quiescent_action but are still quiescent waiting on the user to call funding_contributed. But then we can't differentiate this from counterparty-initiated quiescence. Maybe we need to make a placeholder QuiescentAction for when we are waiting on the user to respond? Something like AwaitingFundingContribution, which could also be checked when funding_contributed is called.

Regarding error handling, since the FundingContribution is taken by value we need to generate a SpliceFailed event to allow the user to unlock the UTXOs. However, some failure may be result of misuse (e.g., wrong channel / counterparty, unexpected funding) or bad timing (e.g., peer already disconnected timing out quiescence).

In those cases, it doesn't make sense to generate SpliceFailed. Maybe we need to use DiscardFunding for some of these cases? We'd need another FundingInfo variant, though.

Otherwise, we'd need to return the UTXOs back to the caller, which we wanted to avoid.

Thoughts?

I'll leave this for a follow-up PR.

Seems like the motivation for this is no longer relevant now that FundingNeeded comes before quiescence. We should definitely allow queueing the splice when quiescent, but only if we're not the initiator and/or we're attempting a different quiescent protocol (not possible yet). If we're already splicing, we should suggest doing an RBF once that's supported.

Seems like the motivation for this is no longer relevant now that FundingNeeded comes before quiescence.

The misuse cases still hold when calling funding_contributed. Maybe they are less likely though given it would essentially be a programmer error? Although, is it still possible when a channel is closed before calling funding_contributed?

We should definitely allow queueing the splice when quiescent, but only if we're not the initiator and/or we're attempting a different quiescent protocol (not possible yet). If we're already splicing, we should suggest doing an RBF once that's supported.

Ok, that should work, but note that once the splice is pending and we are no longer quiescent, we've lost whether we had been the initiator. So we'd need to allow queueing another splice then, which I think should be fine.

When implementing RBF, either side could include the contributions from the enqueued action.

TheBlueMatt · 2026-01-21T22:50:38Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+	) -> Result<msgs::SpliceInit, SpliceFundingFailed>
+	where
+		L::Target: Logger,
+	{


presumably we need to check that we're quiescent and its our turn to talk?

Based on offline discussion, we are no longer waiting to enter quiescence to generate FundingNeeded. It will instead be initiated when funding_contributed is called.

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

jkczyz · 2026-01-22T01:29:24Z

Given that the new API is to be reused for RBF, I wrote up a proposal to consider with this PR. @TheBlueMatt @wpaulino Looking for feedback / alternative ideas before continuing that work.

Observations

DiscardFunding contains the funding outpoint. So I assume users will need to look up the transaction to unlock any UTXOs and reclaim script pubkeys?
For RBF, I see we have FundingScope::funding_transaction, which is an Option. I thought we wanted to clear this, but I don't see where we are doing that.
Either of those require the user to know which outputs are their own and isn't change in order to recreate the SpliceContribution.
We produce a FundingTemplate from a SpliceContribution. The user may add more value / outputs before constructing a FundingContribution.
When implementing the acceptor case, there will not be a SpliceContribution -- just an empty FundingTemplate to be modified if needed before producing a FundingContribution. Similarly for dual funding.
FundingContribution can't differentiate user selected UTXOs from change.

Proposal

Store change output separately in FundingContribution instead of losing the information to outputs.
Store the shared input in FundingContribution to allow recreating the FundingTemplate
Recreate the FundingTemplate internally from the FundingContribution (before it is consumed into a FundingNegotiationContext) and keep track of it until it can be included alongside the negotiated FundingScopes
Alternatively, re-create FundingTemplate somehow from the InteractiveTxConstructor / InteractiveTxSigningSession data. Note, however, that which output, if any, is change will have been already lost.
Expose these FundingTemplates in ChannelDetails for informational purposes.
User initiated RBF doesn't require passing a SpliceContribution.
Instead another FundingNeeded event is generated -- once the channel is quiescent -- containing the last used FundingTemplate
User uses any of the previously used FundingTemplates or the one given in the event (modifying as they see fit) to call ChannelManager::funding_contributed.

Questions

How should we expose the FeeRate used in each negotiation? We need to make sure the RBF uses a greater fee rate, so at very least we need to keep track of it. User also needs to know to pass a higher fee rate when creating the new FundingContribution.
Do we need to also expose the inputs used in each negotiation? They aren't needed for RBF, so would only be informational.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-04T15:27:19Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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 · 2026-02-04T15:27:21Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @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/bump_transaction/mod.rs

wpaulino · 2026-02-04T18:04:46Z

lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/mod.rs

 					if let Some(utxo_claim_id) = locked_utxos.get(&utxo.outpoint) {
-						if *utxo_claim_id != claim_id && !force_conflicting_utxo_spend {
+						if (utxo_claim_id.is_none() || *utxo_claim_id != claim_id)
+							&& !force_conflicting_utxo_spend


We probably shouldn't ever call select_confirmed_utxos_internal with force_conflicting_utxo_spend set when the claim_id isn't set.

Right... though it would be nice for RBF to allow forcing, but we's need something like a claim id for the splices. See #4290 (comment). Updated.

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

wpaulino · 2026-02-04T18:16:24Z

lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs

+
+	// If the acceptor had a pending QuiescentAction, store the stfu message so that it can be used
+	// later in complete_splice_handshake.
+	let node_b_stfu = msg_events


Why not just return it? Also, isn't this being sent a bit too early? We should wait until splice_locked is exchanged to start another splice (and quiescence).

splice_locked is being exchanged above. Returning doesn't help as we want to use complete_splice_handshake which expects the message to be there.

wpaulino · 2026-02-04T18:18:32Z

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

+	is_splice: bool,
+}
+
+impl_writeable_tlv_based!(FundingContribution, {


I guess we still need this until we also get rid of QuiescentAction serialization?

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

wpaulino · 2026-02-04T18:40:28Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+
+						return Err(ChannelError::WarnAndDisconnect(
+							format!(
+								"Channel {} cannot be spliced as it already has a splice pending",


This is a local error, no need to bother the counterparty with it in the warning message

Hmm... same for LegacySplice? What sort of phrasing are you looking for? FWIW, this gets logged in peer_handler.rs.

Note that we have a similar message when the action is None, but we debug_assert there. Should we do that here as well?

wpaulino · 2026-02-04T18:42:29Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+		self.propose_quiescence(logger, QuiescentAction::Splice { contribution, locktime }).map_err(
+			|(e, action)| {
+				log_error!(logger, "{}", e);
+				// FIXME: Any better way to do this?


I pushed a WIP commit the splits DiscardFunding out of SpliceFailed along the lines of what is mentioned in my earlier comment.

Is this in a separate PR? I don't see it here

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

TheBlueMatt

a few comments i ran out of time to finish looking at the actually-important stuff sadly

TheBlueMatt · 2026-02-04T18:29:16Z

lightning/src/ln/funding.rs

 impl_writeable_tlv_based!(FundingTxInput, {
 	(1, utxo, required),
-	(3, sequence, required),
+	(3, _sequence, (legacy, Sequence, |input: &FundingTxInput| Some(input.utxo.sequence))),


If we do read a sequence here and it differs from utxo.sequence doesn't that mean we read the default and should update? You might need/want the custom TLV read/write variant commit from #4373.

May need a change to support this since FundingTxInput::sequence isn't a field anymore. See #4373 (comment).

Now based on #4390.

TheBlueMatt · 2026-02-04T18:42:48Z

lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/mod.rs

 	/// which UTXOs to double spend is left to the implementation, but it must strive to keep the
 	/// set of other claims being double spent to a minimum.
 	///
+	/// If `claim_id` is not set, then the selection should be treated as if it were for a unique


This might want to be a bit stronger - if a claim fails we just RBF it later, but if a splice fails the user is gonna be confused and annoyed.

Did you have something specific in mind? Is this with regards to unlocking the UTXOs?

lightning/src/events/bump_transaction/mod.rs

TheBlueMatt · 2026-02-04T18:48:22Z

lightning/src/events/mod.rs

+	///
+	/// The client should build a [`FundingContribution`] from the provided [`FundingTemplate`] and
+	/// pass it to [`ChannelManager::funding_contributed`]. If the method is not called while
+	/// handling the event, it will have the effect of canceling the splice.


I mean this isn't quite true, right? I can call the method after handling the event, it just has to happen sooner rather than later?

Ah, I had the thought of checking the event queue when calling ChannelManager::funding_contributed similar to what we are doing in splice_channel, which would prevent calling it later. But we don't need to be that strict. Any feelings on that?

At various points we've been stuck in our TLV read/write variants but just want to break out and write some damn code to initialize a field and some more code to decide what to write for a TLV. We added the write-side part of this with the `legacy` TLV read/write variant, but its useful to also be able to specify a function which is called on the read side. Here we add a `custom` TLV read/write variant which calls a method both on read and write to either decide what to write or to map a read value (if any) to the final field.

Update the `legacy` TLV read/write variant signature from `(legacy, $fieldty, $write)` to `(legacy, $fieldty, $read, $write)`, adding a read closure parameter matching the `custom` variant's signature. The read closure is applied in `_check_missing_tlv!` after all TLV fields are read but before `static_value` fields consume legacy values. This preserves backwards compatibility with `static_value` and `default_value` expressions that reference legacy field variables as `Option<$fieldty>` during TLV reading. The read closure signature matches `custom`: `FnOnce(Option<$fieldty>) -> Result<Option<$fieldty>, DecodeError>`. All existing usage sites use `Ok` as their read closure (identity/ no-op). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

A forthcoming commit will change CoinSelection to include FundingTxInput instead of Utxo, though the former will probably be renamed. This is so CoinSelectionSource can be used when funding a splice. Further updating WalletSource to use FundingTxInput is not desirable, however, as it would result in looking up each confirmed UTXOs previous transaction even if it is not selected. See Wallet's implementation of CoinSelectionSource, which delegates to WalletSource for listing all confirmed UTXOs. This commit moves FundingTxInput::sequence to Utxo, and thus the responsibility for setting it to WalletSource implementations. Doing so will allow Wallet's CoinSelectionSource implementation to delegate looking up previous transactions to WalletSource without having to explicitly set the sequence on any FundingTxInput.

In order to reuse CoinSelectionSource for splicing, the previous transaction of each UTXO is needed. Update CoinSelection to use FundingTxInput (renamed to ConfirmedUtxo) so that it is available. This requires adding a method to WalletSource to look up a previous transaction for a UTXO. Otherwise, Wallet's implementation of CoinSelectionSource would need WalletSource to include the previous transactions when listing confirmed UTXOs to select from. But this would be inefficient since only some UTXOs are selected.

CoinSelectionSource is used for anchor bumping where a ClaimId is passed in to avoid double spending other claims. To re-use this trait for funding a splice, the ClaimId must be optional. And, if None, then any locked UTXOs may be considered ineligible by an implementation.

Rather than requiring the user to pass FundingTxInputs when initiating a splice, generate a FundingNeeded event once the channel has become quiescent. This simplifies error handling and UTXO / change address clean-up by consolidating it in SpliceFailed event handling. Later, this event will be used for opportunistic contributions (i.e., when the counterparty wins quiescence or initiates), dual-funding, and RBF.

Now that CoinSelection is used to fund a splice funding transaction, use that for determining of a change output should be used. Previously, the initiator could either provide a change script upfront or let LDK generate one using SignerProvider::get_destination_script. Since older versions may have serialized a SpliceInstruction without a change script while waiting on quiescence, LDK must still generate a change output in this case.

Instead of logging both inside propose_quiescence and at the call site, only log inside it. This simplifies the return type.

jkczyz added this to Weekly Goals Dec 18, 2025

jkczyz self-assigned this Dec 18, 2025

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from f5933e5 to 854e9ca Compare January 12, 2026 17:47

wpaulino reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

jkczyz requested review from TheBlueMatt and wpaulino January 13, 2026 00:28

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 854e9ca to 6d78c3f Compare January 14, 2026 17:03

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 6d78c3f to 94b1aa9 Compare January 15, 2026 17:02

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2026

Mixed mode splicing #4261

Merged

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 94b1aa9 to c3f3453 Compare January 20, 2026 19:16

jkczyz commented Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

jkczyz marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2026 19:25

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from c3f3453 to 3253a99 Compare January 20, 2026 23:57

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch 3 times, most recently from f2d9fa5 to fcccbac Compare January 21, 2026 18:22

TheBlueMatt reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch 3 times, most recently from 22958ef to 449268d Compare February 4, 2026 04:40

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2026

Refactor CoinSelection-related types to wallet_utils module #4382

Draft

wpaulino reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2026

Support payments for less than the total MPP value #4373

Open

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 449268d to 7155b4b Compare February 5, 2026 15:46

jkczyz requested review from TheBlueMatt and wpaulino February 5, 2026 16:56

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 7155b4b to 6b4d229 Compare February 6, 2026 19:23

jkczyz and others added 15 commits February 6, 2026 16:45

f - update Utxo::sequence

9bf01e2

f - use OutPoint instead of Utxo in get_prevtx

51c257f

f - s/amount/input_amount

2c03008

f - avoid force_conflicting_utxo_spend without claim_id

414e34a

f - drop FundingTemplate serialization

7fd1398

f - add TODO(taproot)

9df198f

Consistently log in propose_quiescence

ec2a43b

Instead of logging both inside propose_quiescence and at the call site, only log inside it. This simplifies the return type.

f - log_debug

a5bf3f8

Run rustfmt on fuzz

f16d632

jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-12-new-splice-api branch from 6b4d229 to f16d632 Compare February 6, 2026 22:51

		// FIXME: Should claim_id be an Option?
		let claim_id = ClaimId([0; 32]);

Conversation

jkczyz commented Dec 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jkczyz commented Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wpaulino left a comment

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!

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!

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!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 19, 2026

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 Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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!

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!

jkczyz commented Dec 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jkczyz commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading