optout
optout
> Rather than pushing type info upstream, maybe we should have simpler (public) constructors for the `InteractiveTxConstructor` that are context-specific? ie `InteractiveTxConstructor::for_splicing` and `InteractiveTxConstructor::for_dual_funding` are kinda separate things, and could...
Addressed review comments (sorry, they fall of my priority table...). Remaining outstanding: - ~~rebase~~ - whether there should be a check in `validate_tx` for the existence of a shared output
Did remaining changes: - Add check for missing funding output in validate_tx() - Make `expected_shared_funding_output` mandatory in `NegotiationContext`, as suggested by @TheBlueMatt . In `InteractiveTxConstructor` either a shared output has...
Did formatting, plus 2 minor comment wording change (review).
If this is merged before #3137, these interactivetx.rs changes will disappear from #3137 diff. That would make sense, as this PR has been mostly reviewed already.
UPDATED Here's my take on splicing tasks: ## Prototype - #3274 (depends on #2302) ## 0. Preparations - (#3294 ) - #3295 - (#3293) - #3317 (#3300 ) - #3316...
Updated splice tasks (in earlier comment)
Updated description for Splicing, added table with draft PRs / use case phases, updated PR numbers
As I see, the `dual_funding` cfg flag has been removed (not a problem)
Looks to me that #2989 is in fact included in this PR (good!)