StaticAddr: Withdraw arbitrary amounts #860
Conversation
We remove the static address client and add its rpcs into the SwapClient
Deposit schema extension with a withdrawal sweep address. If the user selects a deposit for withdrawal the destination address of the sweep is stored here.
A new rpc for deposit withdrawals is added. A withdrawal cooperatively spends the 2/2 musig deposit outpoint to a client-specified address.
A server endpoint to obtain a partial sig to cooperatively spend a 2/2 musig deposit outpoint.
hieblmi
force-pushed
the
withdraw-amounts
branch
5 times, most recently
from
4f2ff5d to
f7af7b4
Compare
hieblmi
force-pushed
the
static-addr-staging
branch
from
5b68e42 to
fb9562b
Compare
hieblmi
force-pushed
the
withdraw-amounts
branch
from
f7af7b4 to
827a65b
Compare
hieblmi
force-pushed
the
static-addr-staging
branch
3 times, most recently
from
818562f to
9342b0f
Compare
| outpoints []wire.OutPoint, destAddr string, satPerVbyte int64) (string, | ||
| string, error) { | ||
| outpoints []wire.OutPoint, destAddr string, satPerVbyte int64, | ||
| amount int64) (string, string, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I propose to add to godoc, that amount=0 means "withdraw everything".
| } | ||
|
|
||
| addressParams, err := m.cfg.AddressManager.GetStaticAddressParameters( | ||
| ctx, | ||
| // Send change back to the static address. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I propose this change to make it more clear that address is the same.
s/to the static address/to the same static address/
| // the withdrawal. | ||
| return nil, 0, 0, fmt.Errorf("the change doesn't " + | ||
| "cover for fees. Consider lowering the fee " + | ||
| "rate or increase the withdrawal amount") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/increase/decrease/ IIUC
| withdrawalAmount = selectedWithdrawalAmount | ||
|
|
||
| default: | ||
| // If the fees eat into our withdrawal amount, we fail |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, the feeWithChange fees eat into our withdrawal amount, but this doesn't mean that feeWithoutChange do, since it is lower than feeWithChange. This means, that some amounts fail, even though it is possible to withdraw without change. And we fallback to withdrawing without change in general case when it is not enough funds for the change. So I think for consistency we should do the same here. Can we replace case change-feeWithChange >= 0: with case change-feeWithoutChange >= 0: above?
This PR adds an amount field to the withdrawal rpc.
It allows to withdraw a fraction of the sum of selected deposits to withdraw. The change is sent back to the static address.
If the change is below the dust limit it goes towards miner fees, but warns the user beforehand.