search

Blockstream / lwk

Liquid Wallet Kit
Other
55 stars 25 forks source link

Missing transactions after wallet refresh #42

Closed apotdevin closed 2 months ago

apotdevin commented 3 months ago

I created a wallet and sent funds to the first address it generated but when refreshing the wallet it doesn't find the transactions and shows the wallet as empty.

Here is the address and the transaction.

The wallet was generated with this mnemonic (It's empty now): spirit quick body unveil aim craft swear dizzy sentence season only grab

Note:

LeoComandini commented 3 months ago

Hi @apotdevin ,

The reason why that funds are not shown is that you received an unblinded output. If you check on the explorer, you can see the amounts and asset of that output.

You generated address lq1qqdftpmv7cqpxxuvrxcjgg4ra3dlsnnqw7n0y3snp3967rghqg4kccyja240hv0sygg0lq2f2tv8r48aqx89mwvfkthktu6lae, but then you received on ex1qjrhtwve3ktyrj3ufvh7xvkquesn2tl6lpfrcdz (i.e. the unconfidential version of your address).

In LWK a wallets is described by a descriptor, in your case:

ct(slip77(32810819643794991b3fc4a12d79a1653f5f7a87c76cfdd655c5774a153c9ec0),elwpkh([5f61ad6d/84h/1776h/0h]xpub6CgaXLLCdfpt7rHsuMYUKcBVf87cfquSpAUXKjfdXUrgy9dC98yYxaRAkLkrusK4eh5Wx9537doJFr898SEpFf8pEPMjYS2AzfqPHMuyCPs/<0;1>/*))#ngx6f52t

Which yields to confidential addresses, which ATM are the only ones recognized by LWK.

We are discussing ways to allow spending unconfidential UTXOs, but there are some technical details that still need some thought.

We'll post here updates

LeoComandini commented 3 months ago

We'll post here updates

we'll post updates in #38

apotdevin commented 3 months ago

Got it. This is for a specific swap flow where sending to the unconfidential address is necessary.

~To get a sense if we need to build some internal logic for these types of utxos, is this a big lift to get added into lwk?~

I read the update in https://github.com/Blockstream/lwk/issues/38 and it does seem like a big lift :S

LeoComandini commented 3 months ago

Unfortunately it's not trivial, time depends on priorities, we'll post some ETA as soon as we have them

RCasatta commented 2 months ago

I think this can be closed since there was a reason the tx was missing and unconfidential scripts are handled with #43