Make BumpFee RPC user inputs more stricter. by ziggie1984 · Pull Request #9470 · lightningnetwork/lnd

ziggie1984 · 2025-02-01T18:56:32Z

The BumpFee RPC input parameters are changed with this PR.

For the lncli we do not allow to change the width of the fee-function. The conf_target which is specified changes the starting fee rate of the fee function. Which means the initial broadcasting fee if it's an CPFP transaction.

coderabbitai · 2025-02-01T18:56:41Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.

🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)

llm-review

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Roasbeef · 2025-02-04T18:06:56Z

If we want to get this into a minor release, I think it makes sense to add the new checks at the CLI level first. Then for 0.19, for bump fee that isn't coming from an internal sub-system (we can add some internal attribute to track this), we'll enforce a multiplier check to prevent excessive fees. The multiplier can either be based on the total amount of the output being spent (to set a new default budget), or it can keep the old default budget, then enforce a multiplier based on what the actual conf target is.

yyforyongyu · 2025-02-05T08:05:30Z

+		// are only able to be swept once the deadline is already
+		// passed we precautiously fetch our chainbackend and make sure
+		// we limit the fee rate to the current conditions.
+		fee := FeeEstimateInfo{


i don't think we need to change the fee function - also this means we can never reach the budget?

Yes it will be reached for all sweep sets which are swept (published) before the deadline of 1. Here we will create the fee-function with the maxBudget as the value for the dealine of 1. However also here I would argue before just taking the feeRate according to the fee-function which we defined at the beginning of the sweep, it acutally makes sense to always query the blockchain for the particular conf-target.

With the internal vs external split, for the external we sort of just use a one-shot fee function, one that starts at it's terminal rate. This is intended to match the user's expectation that we do a one time bump with a CPFP transaction that has a fee rate that's exactly either the conf target or fee sat/vb.

I don't think we should touch the sweep, instead, everything can already be handled via tuning the params used in making the sweep request. For instance, if we want to provide the functionality that allow user to do one-shot fee function, with the fee rate derived from a fee estimation, we can craft a request such as,

the user specify a conf target, which is used to perform the fee estimate

the budget is the estimated fee

the starting fee rate is the estimated fee rate

the deadline is 1

And send this request to the sweeper, which I believe is the idea of internal vs external split. The sweeper is already abstracted in a way such that any communication is done via the request, and by changing the fee function here, it gives extra behavior that's not contained in the interface, which is an abstraction violation. This can also be viewed as overexposure,

Overexposure: An API forces callers to be aware of rarely used features in order to use commonly used features.

So if we want to provide the feature, we should do the "internal vs external" split on the RPC layer, though I don't think we even need this feature as the original issue is, the user misunderstood the target-conf param, and what @guggero suggested should be enough to fix the issue.

Roasbeef

I still think we want the internal vs external split here.

yyforyongyu · 2025-02-06T10:01:53Z

I'm also not convinced this should be put in 0.18.5, as minor release should include important bug fixes only?

guggero · 2025-02-06T10:18:36Z

I'm also not convinced this should be put in 0.18.5, as minor release should include important bug fixes only?

Agree. IMO we can do a more in-depth update to the sweeper mechanism in 0.19. But for 0.18.5 I'd suggest only doing CLI level validation (and/or confirmation from user) for potentially dangerous combinations of parameter values.

That can IMO be as simple as:

lncli bumpfee --conf-target 1
Warning: No budget defined. A block deadline of 1 block will instruct the sweeper to use up to 50% of the
transaction's input as fees to get into the next block. Please provide either a fee rate in sat/vByte or a
budget limit to avoid paying high fees.
Continue? y/n

ziggie1984 · 2025-02-06T11:33:51Z

What's your opinion about this new approach:

We interpret the conf_target as the starting fee estimation, and introduce a new parameter called deadline-delta as proposed by yy ? I think that's the cleanest fix we can do for now ? It does not touch the sweeper logic, but makes sure a budget is supplied in case the new parameter is used ?

guggero

Thanks for the fix! I think this approach is good for 0.18.5.

This shouldn't really break anyone, as I don't expect the --conf-target was actually understood as deadline delta by any users. And lndclient only uses a sat/vByte fee rate, so our applications should just work as before.

guggero

Almost there!

ziggie1984 · 2025-02-06T13:55:03Z

Fixing itests now.

yyforyongyu

Approach ack, thanks!

ziggie1984 · 2025-02-06T20:05:52Z

follow-up: #9487

guggero

Nice, thanks for the fixes!

yyforyongyu

The cli needs to be updated, and a few typos, otherwise it's good to go.

yyforyongyu · 2025-02-07T09:22:01Z

-	The deadline in number of blocks that the input should be spent within.
-	When not set, for new inputs, the default value (1008) is used; for
-	exiting inputs, their current values will be retained.`,
+	The conf target is the starting fee rate of the fee function expressed


We should also update the docs for bumpclosefee. In addition, we should add the new param deadline_delta in the cli too.

very good point, updated the bumpclosefee and bumpforceclose RPCs as well.

also added the conf_target (target_conf) to the bumpforceclose RPC

yyforyongyu · 2025-02-07T10:18:08Z

Pending CI and a final squash, other LGTM🙏

Add new parameter deadline-delta to the bumpfee request and only allow it to be used when the budget value is used as well.

ziggie1984 · 2025-02-07T13:29:44Z

Just Release docs. changed with the final push.

yyforyongyu · 2025-02-07T14:12:34Z

looking good - can squash the fixup commit now

Roasbeef

LGTM 🥇

The conf-target only reflects this behaviour for the 0.18.5 release, before the conf target had a different meaning: lightningnetwork/lnd#9470 This commit can be undone after minimalCompatibleVersion is bumbed to 0.18.5.

ziggie1984 marked this pull request as ready for review February 1, 2025 18:58

ziggie1984 mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2025

[bug]: CPFP a mint transaction triggered 85x the necessary fee rate. lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1346

Closed

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from b1b45e3 to 0f7cd3b Compare February 1, 2025 19:04

ziggie1984 requested a review from yyforyongyu February 1, 2025 19:12

ziggie1984 added the utxo sweeping label Feb 1, 2025

ziggie1984 added this to the v0.18.5 milestone Feb 1, 2025

guggero reviewed Feb 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

yyforyongyu reviewed Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Roasbeef requested changes Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch 2 times, most recently from 99b9cf5 to de62b21 Compare February 6, 2025 11:33

guggero reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cmd/commands/walletrpc_active.go Outdated

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cmd/commands/walletrpc_active.go Outdated

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from 65005f3 to e1d6f90 Compare February 6, 2025 13:10

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

guggero reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch 2 times, most recently from e49cae3 to 69e1ee6 Compare February 6, 2025 13:54

yyforyongyu reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from 69e1ee6 to 5757667 Compare February 6, 2025 19:12

ziggie1984 requested review from Roasbeef, guggero and yyforyongyu February 6, 2025 19:33

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from 5757667 to b3e8074 Compare February 6, 2025 19:51

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from b3e8074 to fe29f63 Compare February 6, 2025 19:53

ziggie1984 changed the title ~~Make sure we fail the bump fee request as long as no budget is specified~~ Make BumpFee RPC user inputs more stricter. Feb 6, 2025

guggero approved these changes Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch 2 times, most recently from fbf7d66 to 46555eb Compare February 6, 2025 22:28

Roasbeef reviewed Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cmd/commands/walletrpc_active.go

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

Comment thread lnrpc/walletrpc/walletkit_server.go Outdated

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from 46555eb to 6fe599e Compare February 7, 2025 07:07

ziggie1984 requested a review from Roasbeef February 7, 2025 07:08

yyforyongyu requested changes Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

walletrpc: add new deadline-delta param to bumpfee rpc

34c4d12

Add new parameter deadline-delta to the bumpfee request and only allow it to be used when the budget value is used as well.

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from dc26114 to d67d30c Compare February 7, 2025 10:28

ziggie1984 self-assigned this Feb 7, 2025

ziggie1984 requested a review from yyforyongyu February 7, 2025 11:38

yyforyongyu reviewed Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cmd/commands/walletrpc_active.go

Comment thread docs/release-notes/release-notes-0.18.5.md Outdated

ziggie1984 requested a review from yyforyongyu February 7, 2025 13:30

docs: update release-notes

022b358

ziggie1984 force-pushed the fix-sweepInput-bug branch from 7289ef0 to 022b358 Compare February 7, 2025 14:14

Roasbeef approved these changes Feb 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Roasbeef merged commit ce8cde6 into lightningnetwork:master Feb 7, 2025

Roasbeef mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2025

release: make v0.18.5 rc2 branch #9472

Merged

ziggie1984 mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2025

bumpfee: add more flags as options lightninglabs/lndclient#206

Merged

3 tasks

Conversation

ziggie1984 commented Feb 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Roasbeef commented Feb 4, 2025

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu Feb 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ziggie1984 Feb 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Roasbeef Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Roasbeef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu commented Feb 6, 2025

Uh oh!

guggero commented Feb 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

guggero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

guggero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025

Uh oh!

guggero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yyforyongyu Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ziggie1984 Feb 7, 2025

ziggie1984 commented Feb 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

guggero commented Feb 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ziggie1984 commented Feb 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading