Explicitly set absolute fees when signing transactions

[hydra-yse]

Reflect changes from SatoshiPortal/boltz-rust@db045fb

[dangeross]

I wondered for the refunds if we could use the Relative fee variant instead of calculating it ourselves. What do you think?

[roeierez]

@hydra-yse Are there any pending items here or we can merge?

[danielgranhao]

@hydra-yse PR #688 switched to a fork of boltz client. I prepared a branch in my fork that takes my commit on top of trunk so that you can use it here. See 71ca24969c8e339a9d92d7e52ed17c61c4d11110.

[hydra-yse]

@dangeross

I wondered for the refunds if we could use the Relative fee variant instead of calculating it ourselves. What do you think?

I've tried using relative fees but I get min relay fee error (testnet):

[2025-01-26 22:16:18.831 WARN breez_sdk_liquid::send_swap:145] Could not refund Send swap ... cooperatively: Generic { err: "Electrum server error: \"sendrawtransaction RPC error -26: min relay fee not met, 17 < 19\"" }

Should probably ping Boltz about this, even though their tests seem to be passing. I've looked into it to see if something's off on our side, but nothing yet.

[dangeross]

I've tried using relative fees but I get min relay fee error (testnet):

@hydra-yse Are we getting a different fee when we calculate it ourselves? because we are broadcasting using the same electrum server

[hydra-yse]

I've tried using relative fees but I get min relay fee error (testnet):

@hydra-yse Are we getting a different fee when we calculate it ourselves? because we are broadcasting using the same electrum server

Yes, turns out there's a difference. Calculating with absolute ourselves returns 21 sats, meanwhile relative (with 0.1sat/vb) returns 17 sats (below min relay of 19 sats).

[dangeross]

LGTM.

Lets stick to absolute and ping Boltz. I thought maybe its the dummy fee, but not sure