-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
Reintroduce support for the old submarine swap protocol #10650
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
MartyIX
wants to merge
7
commits into
spesmilo:master
Choose a base branch
from
MartyIX:wex/swap-server-2026-04-28-9b26c18
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+204
−12
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
459d90c
[wexss] add capabilities (#23)
dejfcz 223c0fa
SWAP SERVER: Restore v1 forward swap (#26)
MartyIX 557f8da
SWAP SERVER: Restore v1 forward swap (contd) (#29)
MartyIX e418027
SWAP SERVER: Preliminary LN route check (#30)
MartyIX 1f587fd
Forward: Fix for upstream change (#33)
MartyIX 61b1e1e
Fix linter issue
MartyIX 0a9d13e
plugins/server.py: Add missing await
MartyIX File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So you are not actually probing? HTLCs are not sent, this is just testing if the offline path finder can create some routes at all.
E.g. if Alice is trying to pay Bob, this is just testing that Alice has enough outbound capacity on the direct channel, and that some path can be found in the graph from Alice to Bob based on the gossip and the invoice r hints only. If Alice is using trampoline, it is checking even less, as Alice does not even have the graph.
Consider that Bob has a channel with the ACINQ node, and Alice has a channel with the "Electrum Trampoline" node. Bob likely only generates a bolt11 invoice if the Bob<->ACINQ channel has liquidity. Similarly, Alice knows if the Alice<->"Electrum Trampoline" channel has liquidity. Whether there is liquidity on any path from "Electrum Trampoline" to ACINQ is not checked here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, the check is very basic. It was somewhat intentional to get some feedback.
Thank you for the elaboration. Please help me understand if you find this to be a hard requirement for this PR, or not. I'm not sure how to add this behavior at the moment (perhaps @dejfcz does). If you do know how to add it, any pointer would be very helpful and much appreciated. It would save us time. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. The suggestion is to start with something trivial, which can later be improved by someone with deeper knowledge of Electrum code base. As it is now, it does prevent accepting swap in some scenarios, but of course full probing would be much better. So it is more about setting up the interface (probe_only parameter) for now.