Update liquidjs and code#145
Conversation
src/transaction.ts
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export const DEFAULT_SATS_PER_BYTE = 0.1; | ||
| export const DEFAULT_SATS_PER_BYTE = 0.2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Otherwise CI fails with "min relay fee not met, 124 < 130" https://github.com/vulpemventures/ldk/actions/runs/3461702660/jobs/5779643032
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I changed this a bit too fast, I thought it would affect just the tests. Maybe this is better https://github.com/vulpemventures/ldk/pull/143/files#diff-daff4cb5ab57a2886a0cfe4dae670b9f75c84e865e6dd147a5ad8976ea51924cR194 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this tells me our tx estimation may not be right. Which type of script it's failing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Failing the transaction test, in craftSingleRecipientPset() I think
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok best to tweak from code, rather than change the constant. Will investigate eventually why estimation is changing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since now also ZKP is injectable like normal secp, I would do it expecting a ZKPInterface as we do for TinySecp256k1Interface in options when instantiating the Identity with ecclib.
There is a pending discussion to merge methods of TinySecp in ZKPInterface this way we could pass only secp256k1-zkp to LDK and other libraries using LiquidJS in general, since ZKP would contain all methods ecclib needs.
vulpemventures/liquidjs-lib#85
I think for now we can add a temporary zkplib field in the Identity interface?
ie. @vv/secp256k1-zkp would then only be used in tests, and not imported when installing the LDK library. This would benefit environments without wasm such as react native (they will bring their own zkplib_
This reverts commit 5a20f54.
|
We still importing secp zkp, that should not be needed |
Janaka-Steph
force-pushed
the
fix-confidential
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c76dcb6 to
81723f7
Compare
Janaka-Steph
force-pushed
the
fix-confidential
branch
from
81723f7 to
94f0e62
Compare
2 participants
Please review @tiero