--- Log opened Thu May 26 00:00:35 2022
00:32 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has joined #revault
00:47 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:48 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has joined #revault
01:13 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:21 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has joined #revault
06:05 < Zeeshan> Is there a UI issue that I can take up? So that I can set things up & learn how things on the frontend work?
06:22 < darosior> edouard[m] has been busy setting up something else, but he should be able to reply very soon :)
06:27 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:33 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has joined #revault
06:37 < darosior> Zeeshan: reviewing #391 i'm thinking that maybe the manual CPFP could just use `db_update_spend` (or similar) with the priority set to false. So it would trigger a CPFP at the next block. This is much simpler to code, but the drawback is the user will have to wait one more block.
07:40 < Zeeshan> Hey, iirc weren't you going to get rid of `db` based functions or something similar along that lines? or am I missing some context from that conversation. So if I use `db_update_spend`,  I do not have to do the channel messaging to `bitcoind` channel is it? I'm not entirely sure if the drawback is very large, given that the user put a lower fee & is now bumping it, it might be a fair assumption to make that they are okay waiting
07:41 < Zeeshan> Okay that was in some other context, sorry
08:53 -!- evanlinjin_ [~evanlinji@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
--- Log closed Fri May 27 00:00:35 2022