RBF Coop Close using sat/kw instead of sat/vb

[MPins]

Changed the RBF Coop Close to make it use internally sat/kw instead of sat/vb.

This PR must be merged before PR#10067 as it provides the necessary groundwork.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @MPins, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refactors the RBF cooperative close process to align all fee rate calculations and representations with the sat/kw unit. This change standardizes the internal handling of transaction fees, improving consistency and preparing the codebase for upcoming features that rely on this unified approach. The modifications span across API definitions, internal state management, and fee estimation logic.

Highlights

• Fee Rate Unit Standardization: The RBF cooperative close mechanism has been updated to consistently use sat/kw (satoshi per kiloweight) instead of sat/vb (satoshi per virtual byte) for all internal fee rate calculations and representations.
• API and Data Structure Updates: The lnrpc/lightning.proto and lnrpc/lightning.swagger.json files have been modified to include a new fee_per_kw field in the PendingUpdate message, reflecting the change in fee rate units for external communication.
• Internal Logic Refinement: Core logic within lnwallet/chancloser and peer packages has been adjusted to handle chainfee.SatPerKWeight types directly, removing previous conversions and ensuring consistent fee handling throughout the RBF cooperative close state machine.
• Preparation for Future PR: This pull request serves as foundational work, providing the necessary changes for a subsequent PR (Fees: add fractional sat/vB support (lncli) and sats_per_kw (RPC) #10067) that will likely build upon this standardized fee rate handling.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors the RBF cooperative close logic to use sat/kw instead of sat/vb for fee rates. The changes are consistent across the codebase, including protocol definitions, RPC server logic, and tests. My feedback includes a suggestion to deprecate the old fee_per_vbyte field in the protobuf definition for API clarity and an improvement to a comment to better align with the style guide by explaining the intention of the code.

[Abdulkbk]

Had a first pass through, this looks good. Also confirmed locally that the changes did not break existing tests.

[MPins]

Thank you for taking the time to review this PR @Abdulkbk

[Abdulkbk]

could you resolve the conflict so I can do a final review?.

[MPins]

Hello @Abdulkbk rebase done 👍

[Abdulkbk]

Nice update. My main question now is if we're intentionally not populating FeePerVbyte for PendingUpdate in the rpcserver.

Also, missing entry in release-note

Edit: I think the CI is failing because we're not populating FeePerVbyte

[MPins]

Nice update. My main question now is if we're intentionally not populating FeePerVbyte for PendingUpdate in the rpcserver.

Yes, that makes sense. Updated.

Also, missing entry in release-note

Done

Edit: I think the CI is failing because we're not populating FeePerVbyte
This test was merged after my PR, which is why it wasn't failing before.

Thank you again!

[Abdulkbk]

LGTM 413db81 🎉

[lightninglabs-deploy]

@MPins, remember to re-request review from reviewers when ready