Olaoluwa Osuntokun

Some items on my mind lately (mostly future stuff): * **Off chain channel on boarding**: * A class of protocol extensions designed to enable more than one channel to exist...

Here's the raw notes I took during the summit (working on typing up a longer summary): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1erQfnZjjfRBSSwo_QWiKiCZP5UQ-MR53ZWs4zIAVcqs/edit?usp=sharing

Used this recently during the PB Hackathon. It worked pretty well. Decomposing the pipeline into dedicated actors allowed for incremental implementation during the time crunch (24 hr hackathon, but we...

Support for "mining" a signet isn't implemented yet.

Rounded things out by adding the mc namespace support to query+reset+import mc. I think there's a gap here though: we don't persist the mc namespace for a payment, so on...

~~Looking at that last log message, it looks like the minting transaction itself is what is missing the STXO proof.~~ ~~We write the final proofs in `storeMintingProof` but at that...

~~Thinking about it more: IIUC, the send is failing as it declare that the input proof is invalid. Above we see where the proof was rejected as it was missing...

Are we able to extract the raw proof that's being rejected in the comment above?

Another hunch: were script keys re-used across the inputs created for that transaction? If so, then we may be missing/omitting a proof, see this area: https://github.com/lightninglabs/taproot-assets/blob/21f385d965852a8c447a883fc3fa6d3e046ca329/proof/append.go#L221-L234 EDIT: No that's fine,...

It looks like `btcd` was unable to open/remove a file, which lead to the sync issue? ``` 2024-05-21 08:30:06.205 [ERR] SYNC: Failed to process block 0000000000000000001ffa51b023619b5e43b109a95a0212ee65a5ab5658c701: remove z:\btcd-data\mainnet\blocks_ffldb\000000352.fdb: The process...