fix(transfer): update liquidity policy

[pwltr]

Description

• update LSP channel balances according to new policy
• show split network and service fees for CJIT

Linked Issues/Tasks

Closes https://github.com/synonymdev/bitkit/issues/1856 https://github.com/synonymdev/bitkit/issues/2054 https://github.com/synonymdev/bitkit/issues/2379

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Refactoring (improving code without creating new functionality)

Tests

• Detox test
• Unit test
• No test

QA Notes

• although we decided to remove the minimum for the LSP balance there is still a technical minimum required for LDK of 2% of total channel size, so it cannot be 0
• there's also required minimum channel size from blocktank (currently 20k sats on production), in some cases more is added on the LSP side to fulfill this requirement
• we still subtract a buffer of 2% of the maximum channel size from blocktank to account for exchange rate fluctuation
• there is still a 80% cap on the max client balance to account for onchain fees
• sometimes you have to add/subtract the reserve balance (1%) for channel balances to get the numbers you expect
• currently there is an issue where CJIT "you will receive" amount is wrong

[socket-security]

New and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
npm/@synonymdev/blocktank-lsp-http-client@2.2.0	None	0	84.7 kB	sebubu

🚮 Removed packages: npm/@synonymdev/blocktank-lsp-http-client@2.0.0

View full report↗︎

[limpbrains]

Why don't we implement a test for the new logic? Or is it so simple that we don't need this?

[pwltr]

Why don't we implement a test for the new logic? Or is it so simple that we don't need this?

Yes we do want tests, currently QA is making sure that I implemented the spec correctly. Not going to merge this yet.