--- Log opened Mon Nov 26 00:00:34 2018 00:24 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 01:18 -!- takinbo_ [sid19838@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vyuvelisdlbcrdve] has joined #c-lightning 01:25 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: takinbo 01:25 -!- takinbo_ is now known as takinbo 02:11 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 02:34 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 02:36 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Quit: farmerwampum] 02:36 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 02:41 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Client Quit] 02:41 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 02:46 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:46 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 02:51 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Client Quit] 02:51 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 04:02 -!- Amperture [~amp@24.136.5.183] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:05 -!- Amperture [~amp@24.136.5.183] has joined #c-lightning 04:21 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 04:22 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #c-lightning 04:56 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""] 05:25 -!- spaced0ut [~spaced0ut@unaffiliated/spaced0ut] has joined #c-lightning 05:36 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Quit: farmerwampum] 05:37 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 05:41 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Client Quit] 05:41 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 05:53 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 07:10 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has joined #c-lightning 07:21 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 07:51 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 08:16 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:48 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:50 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 08:56 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@68.168.114.35] has joined #c-lightning 09:00 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:00 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #c-lightning 10:02 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:09 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] looks like the payment is dead in the water for 1 week 10:09 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] ``` 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "htlcs": [ 10:09 < blockstream_bot> { 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "direction": "out", 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "id": 13, 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "msatoshi": 14861018, 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "expiry": 551774, 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "payment_hash": "3381234f3ac517cbf5673236e31e4e67fbd0201ab1a39ecb2863e7c070bf2cd3", 10:09 < blockstream_bot> "state": "SENT_ADD_ACK_REVOCATION" 10:09 < blockstream_bot> } 10:09 < blockstream_bot> ] 10:09 < blockstream_bot> ``` 10:10 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] still on blockheight 551593 ... very, very long time to expiry 10:10 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] what determines the expiry? 10:29 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] @tak oh.. so you found it.. :) 10:54 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has joined #c-lightning 10:58 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] haha yeah 10:58 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i also decided to give the customer the coffee for free, rather than have them wait 1 week for the expiry 11:01 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] I really wish there was a faster way to fail payments, so I can just retry a different route 11:02 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 11:02 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] That is, if a node decides to go down, I'd rather not have to wait for 1 week. It would be much nicer if the payment request would automatically become invalid on the network after say 60 seconds. 11:02 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] So that even if the node came back, I could rest assured that the payment will fail, and I can try another one. 11:03 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] @tak how did you figure 'one week'? 11:03 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] expiry block height: 551774 11:03 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] current height: 551598, 11:03 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] and what's the current block right now? 11:03 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] so how many blocks left? 11:04 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] 177 blocks x 10 minutes per block = 1,770 blocks 11:04 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] what :p 11:04 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] there are about 144 blocks a day 11:04 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] so that tx will expire in a little over a day 11:04 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] either way, 1 day is a hell of a long time to wait for coffee 11:05 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] why not expire after 1 block, so that at least in 10 minutes i can try another lightning payment on a completely different route? 11:05 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] well look at how routing works, and sure we do get stuck txs but does your customer have a direct channel to your node? 11:05 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i'm not sure what the customer has, i was hoping that it wouldn't really matter? 11:06 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] it wouldn't matter if the network has a whole lot more liquidity 11:06 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i know there are many routes, because he's using a http://moneni.com wallet which has like 100+ channels 11:06 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] and my node has 33+ channels 11:06 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] doesn't matter, it's `liquidity` is what matters 11:06 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i have like some $10,000+ in btc capacity, and this is a $3.50 transaction 11:07 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] the `getroute` command gives me tons of different pathways from me to http://moneni.com's node 11:07 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] it just accidentally hit a bad node, that fell down, and now my payment is stuck for hours and hours 11:08 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] would it be better to blast 1 satoshi at a time, over and over? so that, worst case, some % of transactions that get stuck on a bad route can be calculated into the losses? 11:09 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] so rather than sending 100,000 satoshi all at once, just send 1 satoshi, 100,000 times. 11:09 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] if 90% of the routes succeed, i can just eat the 10% of the lost satoshi as a business risk 11:10 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] better than eating 100% of the stuck transaction as a loss 11:11 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Quit: farmerwampum] 11:11 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] it's not a loss if your coin is back in your wallet 11:11 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has joined #c-lightning 11:11 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] that's true 11:11 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] but if the node comes back, then i will have double-paid 11:12 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i'm crossing my fingers that now it will expire 11:12 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] what do you mean? 11:12 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i paid an extra $3.50 because the payment was stuck 11:13 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] so the original transaction is still in "pending" and so the customer was tired of waiting, so i sent them another $3.50 11:13 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] on a completely separate invoice 11:13 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] that stuck amt is not going thru, it's waiting for the timelock to timeout and it's going to show back up in your channel where you sent the amt 11:13 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] what if the node comes back and continues processing? 11:14 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] that's the explanation i read on github about "pending" - was that it can't be surely marked as failed yet 11:14 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] either the node has to report the failure, or the time must expire 11:15 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i agree though, that i'm 99% sure it will probably fail, because it's already been 2 days and still nothing 11:16 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] even though i'm connected to the initial node, i think some downstream node is failing 11:16 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] but my point about squeezing down the expiry still stands, why lightning needs 2-3 day expiry on invoices if the system is designed to be real-time 11:17 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] (not just on invoices, but on payment requests - however the expiry blockheight was calculated) 11:17 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] yea agreed but i don't know why, just have to ask the devs 11:17 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] +1 yeah hopefully i can find out 11:18 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] better yet, i wish the software can do stuff like if a tx is not going to succeed just give us a choice "there's no liquidity or route, your tx might fail, would you like to proceed? y/n" 11:19 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i wish it would simply do a pre-flight with 1 satoshi on a route, to verify that everything is dandy 11:19 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] then 1 second later, do the real transaction 11:19 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] if the 1 satoshi fails, then we can try another route 11:20 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] point of this would be to verify the stability of the network route, not really for liquidity or anything 11:20 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] but a liquidity test would be nice too, like a declaration, "i plan to send 100,000 satoshi over this route" 11:21 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] well for lnd we do have this question before sending a payment: `Confirm payment (yes/no):` 11:21 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] and it would perform all the checks along to see if it will likely fail or succeed, before actually sending any real money 11:21 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] Yeah that's a good check for CLI users 11:22 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] but I think GUIs will make that much better anyways 11:22 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i'm more concerned about network failures 11:22 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] lnd has "lightning-app" a light client with GUI in testing and it has a screen to confirm before sending a payment too 11:23 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] yeah, but what i really want is the ability to send a "dummy test payment" through the exact route i'm planning to use 11:23 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] c-lightning needs help with gui, yes 11:23 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] even if there's a slight chance that liquidity on the route may change between the test and the actual run 11:24 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] i think that's a very small concern for me, versus the fact that over 50% of my payments have failed and gotten stuck in "pending" for days 11:24 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] i think the longer timelock is there for security 11:24 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] it's pretty unusable, so i might have to implement the 1-satoshi pre-flight route payment first 11:24 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] @tak maybe read the code ? 11:25 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] for c-lightning? 11:25 < blockstream_bot> [moli, Blockstream] yep 11:25 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] yeah unfortunately it's all gibberish to me, even as someone who spent years writing C and C++ 11:26 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] it's hard to understand the concepts, and the code uses techniques i've never seen before 11:30 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] hmm... is it possible to pay a single invoice in multiple chunks? 11:30 < blockstream_bot> [Tim Ho, Blockstream] like send 50% over one route, and 50% over another route 11:40 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 12:19 < roasbeef> ^ yep, 1.1 will allow various flavors of that 12:41 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 13:27 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 13:35 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@81.17.246.108] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:52 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:56 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 15:56 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has joined #c-lightning 15:59 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:00 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has joined #c-lightning 16:07 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 16:13 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 16:19 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 16:35 -!- michaelsdunn1 [~michaelsd@unaffiliated/michaelsdunn1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:05 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 18:15 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #c-lightning 19:02 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 19:10 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 19:20 < charltonh> Anyone on here know why I always get this segfault when I run ./configure? https://paste.ee/p/MCYLY 19:21 < charltonh> Looks like a bug. 19:58 -!- farmerwampum [~farmerwam@184.75.220.210] has joined #c-lightning 20:49 -!- spaced0ut [~spaced0ut@unaffiliated/spaced0ut] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:05 < notmike> Definitely looks like the configuration fails, missing libraries? 21:08 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 21:09 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-rellmfrflzdhuffb] has left #c-lightning [] 21:10 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-rellmfrflzdhuffb] has joined #c-lightning 21:10 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #c-lightning 21:30 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:31 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 21:39 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 21:43 < charltonh> Maybe one of my library versions is mismatched or something? I always get this, but seems to build and run properly 21:44 < notmike> It's more likely specific to your configuration, because obvs it compiles for everyone else. 21:44 < notmike> There are some headers that weren't found in that snippet you posted 21:48 < charltonh> Yeah but even if not all required headers are available, you shouldn't see segfaults 21:55 < notmike> I agree, it's odd 21:55 < notmike> Are you building from Master? 22:06 < charltonh> Yes 22:06 < charltonh> latest commit da465... 22:11 < notmike> Maybe checkout a release and build that? 22:11 < notmike> Master can be buggy ime 22:11 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 22:50 < charltonh> well it's actually been this way since the configure script was implemented. 22:51 < charltonh> I'm just mentioning it now because it wasn't ever fixed. I could try to take a look myself at it... 22:53 < notmike> Don't microagress me bro 22:58 < charltonh> heheh sorry :-) 23:37 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving] --- Log closed Tue Nov 27 00:00:35 2018