Skip to content

[RFC] Add BOLT 12 payer proof primitives#4297

Open
vincenzopalazzo wants to merge 4 commits intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
vincenzopalazzo:macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec
Open

[RFC] Add BOLT 12 payer proof primitives#4297
vincenzopalazzo wants to merge 4 commits intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
vincenzopalazzo:macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec

Conversation

@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo commented Jan 5, 2026

This is a first draft implementation of the payer proof extension to BOLT 12 as proposed in lightning/bolts#1295. The goal is to get early feedback on the API design before the spec is finalized.

Payer proofs allow proving that a BOLT 12 invoice was paid by demonstrating possession of:

  • The payment preimage
  • A valid invoice signature over a merkle root
  • The payer's signature

This PR adds the core building blocks:

  • Extends merkle.rs with selective disclosure primitives that allow creating and reconstructing merkle trees with partial TLV disclosure. This enables proving invoice authenticity while omitting sensitive fields.
  • Adds payer_proof.rs with PayerProof, PayerProofBuilder, and UnsignedPayerProof types. The builder pattern allows callers to selectively include invoice fields (description, amount, etc.) in the proof.
  • Implements bech32 encoding/decoding with the lnp prefix and proper TLV stream parsing with validation (ascending order, no duplicates, hash length checks).

This is explicitly a PoC to validate the API surface - the spec itself is still being refined. Looking for feedback on:

  • Whether the builder pattern makes sense for selective disclosure
  • The verification API
  • Integration points with the rest of the offers module

cc @TheBlueMatt @jkczyz

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 5, 2026 •
edited
Loading

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Jan 5, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.33355% with 88 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.17%. Comparing base (4c398bb) to head (865df15).
⚠️ Report is 48 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs 93.60% 29 Missing and 38 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs 96.70% 7 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 68.18% 7 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/outbound_payment.rs 97.72% 1 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs 97.91% 1 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/signer.rs 97.29% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4297      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.99%   87.17%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         163      162       -1     
  Lines      108706   110768    +2062     
  Branches   108706   110768    +2062     
==========================================
+ Hits        94571    96563    +1992     
- Misses      11655    11682      +27     
- Partials     2480     2523      +43
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzing ?
fuzzing-fake-hashes 30.72% <0.62%> (?)
fuzzing-real-hashes 22.37% <2.48%> (?)
tests 86.27% <94.33%> (+0.18%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt reviewed Jan 11, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few notes, though I didn't dig into the code at a particularly low level.

Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2026 17:00
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch 2 times, most recently from 2324361 to 9f84e19 Compare January 20, 2026 17:42
vincenzopalazzo added a commit to vincenzopalazzo/payer-proof-test-vectors that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2026
@vincenzopalazzo @claude
Initial implementation of BOLT 12 payer proof test vector CLI
01591f3 
Add a Rust CLI tool that generates and verifies test vectors for BOLT 12
payer proofs as specified in lightning/bolts#1295. The tool uses the
rust-lightning implementation from lightningdevkit/rust-lightning#4297.

Features:
- Generate deterministic test vectors with configurable seed
- Verify test vectors from JSON files
- Support for basic proofs, proofs with notes, and invalid test cases
- Uses refund flow for explicit payer key control

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 22, 2026

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt reviewed Jan 23, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some API comments. I'll review the actual code somewhat later (are we locked on on the spec or is it still in flux at all?), but would be nice to reduce allocations in it first anyway.

Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/merkle.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 26, 2026

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@valentinewallace valentinewallace removed their request for review January 26, 2026 17:25
@jkczyz jkczyz self-requested a review January 27, 2026 18:59
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 29, 2026

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 2, 2026

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 4, 2026

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 7, 2026

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 9, 2026

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 11, 2026

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 14, 2026

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 16, 2026

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 18, 2026

🔔 9th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt added this to the 0.3 milestone Feb 18, 2026
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch 5 times, most recently from fb8c68c to 9ad5c35 Compare February 24, 2026 18:13
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch 4 times, most recently from 56efb64 to 1ee2f1a Compare April 15, 2026 20:20
jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Apr 15, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated

impl PayerProof {
/// The payment preimage proving the invoice was paid.
pub fn preimage(&self) -> PaymentPreimage {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not done

Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment on lines +512 to +515
/// The payer's note, if any.
pub fn payer_note(&self) -> Option<PrintableString<'_>> {
self.contents.payer_note.as_deref().map(PrintableString)
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not done.

ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Apr 15, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Apr 15, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Apr 15, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch 3 times, most recently from 26648f3 to 6f58300 Compare April 16, 2026 19:42
@jkczyz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

jkczyz commented Apr 17, 2026

Some of the commits mixup changes. And the tests don't compile in two of the commits. Not sure why check_commits missed this. Here's a summary from Claude:

PR 4297 — commit split review

Analysis of which changes in commit 4 logically belong in earlier commits on the pr/4297 branch.

Branch commits

  1. 489e64322 refactor(offers): extract payer key derivation helpers
  2. 97832a449 feat(offers): add BOLT 12 payer proof primitives
  3. 464b8f75c refactor(offers): move Bolt12InvoiceType into payer_proof
  4. 78aa605d7 refactor(offers): bundle paid invoice data for payer proofs
  5. 6f58300515 fix(offers): use DFS order for payer proof missing hashes

Commits 2 and 3 fail to compile (cargo +1.75.0 check --tests -p lightning). Commits 1, 4, and 5 compile cleanly.

Belongs in commit 2 (97832a449 "add BOLT 12 payer proof primitives")

1. Named TLV constants in tlv_stream! macros

lightning/src/offers/offer.rs and lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs:

  • Commit 2 introduces OFFER_DESCRIPTION_TYPE, OFFER_ISSUER_TYPE, INVOICE_CREATED_AT_TYPE, INVOICE_PAYMENT_HASH_TYPE, INVOICE_AMOUNT_TYPE, INVOICE_FEATURES_TYPE, INVOICE_NODE_ID_TYPE but leaves the literal integers (10, 18, 164, 168, ...) in the adjacent tlv_stream! macros.
  • Commit 4 replaces them with the named constants. Purely cosmetic; belongs with the constant introduction.

2. Fix the broken offers_tests.rs API

lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs:

  • Commit 2 adds tests that reference PayerProofBuilder::build_with_derived_key(...), PayerProof::preimage(), and PayerProof::payer_id(). None of those exist in the payer_proof.rs that commit 2 itself adds — the real names are build_and_sign, payment_preimage, payer_signing_pubkey.
  • This is the direct cause of the commit‑2 compile failure (5 E0599 errors on build_with_derived_key).
  • The entry‑point rewrite from invoice.payer_proof_builder(preimage) to paid_invoice.prove_payer_derived(...) could also land in commit 2: the PaidBolt12Invoice struct and its prove_payer/prove_payer_derived methods already exist in commit 2's payer_proof.rs (lines 91–). Only the fact that PaidBolt12Invoice is surfaced through PaymentSent depends on commit 4.

Belongs in commit 3 (464b8f75c "move Bolt12InvoiceType into payer_proof")

3. Finish the PaidBolt12Invoice → Bolt12InvoiceType rename

lightning/src/ln/async_payments_tests.rs line 3624:

assert_eq!(res, Some(PaidBolt12Invoice::StaticInvoice(static_invoice)));

Every other Bolt12InvoiceType::StaticInvoice(...) in that file got renamed in commit 3; this one was missed. It's what makes commit 3 fail with error[E0433]: use of undeclared type PaidBolt12Invoice.

Genuinely belongs in commit 4

The actual "bundle paid invoice data" work:

  • Add payment_nonce: Option<Nonce> to HTLCSource::OutboundRoute, SendAlongPathArgs, PendingOutboundPayment::Retryable (plus TLV fields 9/17 on serialization) and plumb it through send_payment_for_bolt12_invoice{,_verified,_internal}, pay_route_internal, create_pending_payment, claim_htlc.
  • Extract payment_nonce from OffersContext::Outbound{ForOffer,ForRefund} in channelmanager.rs.
  • Change Event::PaymentSent::bolt12_invoice type from Option<Bolt12InvoiceType> to Option<PaidBolt12Invoice>, splitting serialization into (9, invoice_type) + (11, payment_nonce) and reconstructing on read.
  • Update expect_payment_sent / claim_payment{,_along_route} return types in functional_test_utils.rs and the async-payments test assertions that peek into the returned PaidBolt12Invoice.
  • Corresponding test‑site construction fixes in channel.rs, onion_utils.rs, fuzz/src/process_onion_failure.rs.

Commit 4 message is inaccurate

The commit 4 message claims it "rework[s] builder to return UnsignedPayerProof with SignFn/sign_message integration, use[s] encode_tlv_stream! for serialization, move[s] helpers to DisclosedFields methods." Commit 4 doesn't touch payer_proof.rs at all — those pieces are already in commit 2 (and encode_tlv_stream! is never used there). The message should be rewritten to describe only the PaidBolt12Invoice / payment_nonce plumbing it actually performs.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 20, 2026

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

1 similar comment
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 20, 2026

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch from 6f58300 to af17a09 Compare April 21, 2026 17:27
vincenzopalazzo added a commit to vincenzopalazzo/rust-lightning that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2026
@vincenzopalazzo @claude
offers: prove payer proof rejects unknown even TLVs in every range
fba9fc5 
Per Rusty's and Jeffrey's preference (see [1] and [2]), a payer proof
must reject any unknown even TLV in the stream: even means "MUST NOT
CONTINUE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS", and including an unknown even
TLV in a proof implies the verifier needs to check something about it
that it cannot.

The parser already enforces this: `ParsedMessage::<FullPayerProofTlvStream>`
routes bytes through every sub-stream (offer, invoice request, invoice,
payer-proof/signature, and the three experimental ranges) and each
`tlv_stream!`-generated sub-parser rejects unknown even TLVs inside its
range with `UnknownRequiredFeature`. Types that fall into the unused gap
between the signature range (`..=1000`) and the experimental offer range
(`1_000_000_000..`) are left unconsumed by every sub-stream and rejected
by `ParsedMessage`'s all-bytes-consumed check with `InvalidValue`.

Fold `test_parsing_even_type_handling_by_range` and
`test_parsing_rejects_unknown_even_signature_range_types` (which
together covered only two of the seven sub-stream ranges) into a single
`test_parsing_rejects_unknown_even_tlvs_in_every_range` that drives an
`assert_rejected` helper across all seven sub-stream ranges plus the
gap between the signature and experimental ranges. Also expand the
comment on `tlv_stream_iter` to spell out the rejection policy it
relies on.

No behavior change; this commit only adds test coverage and
documentation.

[1] lightningdevkit#4297 (comment)
[2] lightningdevkit#4297 (comment)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch from fba9fc5 to cdac67d Compare April 21, 2026 18:35
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 22, 2026

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

1 similar comment
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ldk-reviews-bot commented Apr 22, 2026

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

vincenzopalazzo commented Apr 22, 2026

Thanks for the review, now the commit should be better divided and pass the check commits checks. In addition to that, I added the unknown fields rejection to the tests to validate the code.

Should be good for another round!

jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Apr 23, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still got a bit to review. I'm fine if you just make the changes in the relevant commits without using fixups.

Comment thread lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/signer.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/signer.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/util/ser.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
Comment thread lightning/src/offers/payer_proof.rs Outdated
vincenzopalazzo and others added 4 commits April 23, 2026 09:01
@vincenzopalazzo
refactor(offers): extract payer key derivation helpers
df8cd15 
Move the invoice/refund payer key derivation logic into reusable helpers so
payer proofs can derive the same signing keys without duplicating the metadata
and signer flow.
@vincenzopalazzo @rustyrussell @claude
feat(offers): add BOLT 12 payer proof primitives
eb45da9 
Add the payer proof types, selective disclosure merkle support,
parsing, and tests for constructing and validating BOLT 12 payer
proofs from invoices. This implements the payer proof extension to
BOLT 12 as specified in lightning/bolts#1295.

Missing hashes in a proof are emitted in the DFS traversal order
defined by the spec. The BOLT 12 payer proof spec test vectors from
bolt12/payer-proof-test.json (full disclosure, minimal disclosure,
with payer note, and left-subtree omitted) validate the end-to-end
output.

The parser rejects unknown even TLVs in every sub-stream range
(offer, invoice request, invoice, payer-proof/signature, and the
three experimental ranges) via the `tlv_stream!` macro's unknown-even
fallback, and rejects types in the unused gap between the signature
range and the experimental ranges via the all-bytes-consumed check in
`ParsedMessage::try_from`.

Co-Authored-By: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vincenzopalazzo
refactor(offers): move Bolt12InvoiceType into payer_proof
9455562 
Rename the old PaidBolt12Invoice enum to Bolt12InvoiceType, move it out of events, and update outbound payment plumbing to store the renamed invoice type directly.
@vincenzopalazzo @jkczyz @claude
refactor(offers): bundle paid invoice data for payer proofs
865df15 
Encapsulate the paid invoice, preimage, and payer nonce in the
PaidBolt12Invoice struct and surface it through
Event::PaymentSent::bolt12_invoice. To support the nonce round-trip,
plumb payment_nonce through HTLCSource::OutboundRoute,
SendAlongPathArgs, PendingOutboundPayment::Retryable and the outbound
payment internals, and extract it from the OffersContext variants so
payers can later re-derive the payer signing key from the same nonce
used for the invoice request.

Update expect_payment_sent, claim_payment, claim_payment_along_route
and the async-payments test assertions to surface and consume the
PaidBolt12Invoice. Also add Writeable/Readable impls for sha256::Hash
in util::ser so PaidBolt12Invoice serialization compiles.

Co-Authored-By: Jeffrey Czyz <jkczyz@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo force-pushed the macros/proof-of-payment-bolt12-spec branch from cdac67d to 865df15 Compare April 23, 2026 13:36
@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

vincenzopalazzo commented Apr 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

All 14 threads from the last review are addressed in 865df15 (plus df8cd15 for the signer.rs doc rewrites). Ready for another pass.

@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo requested a review from jkczyz April 23, 2026 16:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt Awaiting requested review from TheBlueMatt

@jkczyz jkczyz Awaiting requested review from jkczyz

2 more reviewers

@rustyrussell rustyrussell rustyrussell left review comments

@ldk-claude-review-bot ldk-claude-review-bot ldk-claude-review-bot left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo

Labels

None yet

Projects

Weekly Goals
Status: No status

Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@vincenzopalazzo @ldk-reviews-bot @ldk-claude-review-bot @jkczyz @TheBlueMatt @rustyrussell