This commit adds a new struct to hold all HTLC keys and refactors the
SwapContract which is used by both loopin and loopout swaps to use this
new struct. The newly added internal keys will for now hold the script
keys to keep everything equivalent but are already stored and read back
if the protocol version is set to MuSig2.
We already have a Label field in the embedded SwapContract
field for loop in swaps. This commit removes an erroneously
added Label field in LoopInContract which may be a cause of
ambiguity when referencing this field.
Previously labels with reserved prefixes were added to provide us
with a way to identify automatically dispatched loops. This commit moves
the validation of these labels to the rpc level so that it will only
apply to user-initiated swaps.
This commits adds an optional label to our swaps, and writes it to
disk under a separate key in our swap bucket. This approach is chosen
rather than an on-the-fly addition to our existing swap contract field
so that we do not need to deal with EOF checking in the future. To allow
creation of unique internal labels, we add a reserved prefix which can
be used by the daemon to set labels that are distinct from client set
ones.
A database field was already in place to allow channel selection for
loop in. Unfortunately this field, which contains a short channel id,
isn't easily usable for controlling the loop server payment. Because of
non-strict forwarding, it is only possible to constrain a route to a
specific last hop pubkey.
This commit converts the existing field into a pubkey field.
Allow user to specify that htlc will be published by an external source.
In that case no internal htlc tx will be published.
To facilitate sending to the htlc address, the swap initiation response
is extended with that address.
This commit adds the required code to persist loop in swaps. It also
introduces the file loop.go to which shared code is moved.
Sharing of contract serialization/deserialization code has been
reverted. The prepay fields do not apply to loop in, but were part of
the shared contract struct. Without also adding a migration, it wouldn't
be possible to keep the shared code.
In general it is probably more flexible to keep the contract
serialization code separated between in and out swaps.
Andras Banki-Horvath
carla
Joost Jager
Oliver Gugger