We don't preserve detailed asset information at the moment, so provide a
way to convert from a sat to an amount_asset struct.
We also need a way to convert from an 'amount_asset' to a 'value' for
elements, which for explicit (i.e. non-blinded) asssets is a 0x01 prefix
plus the big-endian encoded value.
Our existing coin_moves tracking logic assumed that any tx we had an
input in belonged to *all* of our wallet (not a bad assumption as long
as there was no way to update a tx that spends our wallets)
Now that we've got `signpsbt` implemented, however, we need to be
careful about how we account for withdrawals. For now we do a best guess
at what the feerate is, and lump all of our spent outputs as a
'withdrawal' when it's impossible to disambiguate
It returns NULL, so you can simply `return fromwire_fail(...)`
if you want to return NULL in this case. Use that more.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We did this originally because these types are referred to in the bolts, and we
had no way of injecting the correct include lines into those. Now we do, so
there's less excuse for this.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Now that we have json_stream in common/, we can move all the related
helpers from lightningd/json to common/json. This way everyone can
benefit of them (including libplugin, the plugins themselves,
potentially lightning-cli), not lightningd alone!
Note that the Makefile of the common/test/ had to be modified, because
the new helpers make use of common/wireaddr... Which turns out to
\#include <lightingd/lightningd.h> ! So we couldnt just include the .c
and add mocks if we redefined some structs (hello run-param).
Currently the only source for amount_asset is the value getter on a tx output,
and we don't hand it too far around (mainly ignoring it if it isn't the
chain's main currency). Eventually we could bubble them up to the wallet, use
them to select outputs or actually support assets in the channels.
Since we don't hand them around too widely I thought it was ok for them to be
pass-by-value rather than having to allocate them and pass them around by
reference. They're just 41 bytes currently so the overhead should be ok.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <@cdecker>
It assumes the head of the array is the object/array we want to remove from,
but that's not true if we're trying to remove from a sub-object.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
niftynei
Rusty Russell
darosior
Christian Decker
Mark Beckwith