--- Log opened Sun May 26 00:00:23 2019 00:04 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 00:26 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 01:35 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 03:29 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 03:39 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 03:53 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 04:00 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 04:08 < m-schmoock> t0mix: your node seem to perform a bit better now. will get even better once the final gossip enhancements are merged, which are yet in a bit buggy state 05:00 < t0mix> I'm happy to 'hear' that :) only find definitive solution to channels closure with LND and it's a win life 05:02 < t0mix> lol ": 05:06 < t0mix> m-chmoock: I just noticed, I opened channel with 🥒CTRLBREAK🥒and rebalanced, using your node. then I was trying to rebalance yoyour node using some other channel, but I couldn't. so I decided to try again later. ... meanwhile, you rebalanced our channel back, pushing my channel with 🥒CTRLBREAK🥒back to imbalanced state ='D this is fun! ='D 05:16 < m-schmoock> lol :D 05:16 < m-schmoock> i was just testing your node as it keept having troubles 05:22 < m-schmoock> we could implement a plugin that does nightly/weekly auto rebalance of some threshold/worse channels 05:22 < t0mix> I'm preparing parts for new server. AMD RYZEN 5 2600 vs Intel Core i5-9400F. I'm not decided, but probably AMD, since it has more cores (hyperthreading). pitty I have no idea if number of cores are better for bitcoind or rather higher CPU freq (in that case Intel would be the choice). RPI seems to be.. just too weak :( 05:22 < m-schmoock> One answer: Solid State Disk 05:22 < m-schmoock> CPU is irrelevant 05:23 < t0mix> hm, you think that if I connect SSD to RPI, that's enough? 5400rpm HDD is there atm. 05:23 < m-schmoock> If you want do to stuff like indexing, electrumx server, lots of gosspid restarts and such, you need a SSD drive 05:24 < m-schmoock> nah, RasPi is very slow. But between Intel or AMD thats not big difference. Key is random access time of storage 05:24 < t0mix> I was going to buy SSD anyway, but maybe it is worth trying connect SSD to RPI first. and compare the difference. 05:25 < m-schmoock> you can do that, but I doubt the HDD was the bottleneck in this case :D 05:25 < t0mix> nah, based on my observation it really wasn't :) 05:25 < m-schmoock> My Server has a very decent CPU but 2x4 TB HDD, not SSD 05:26 < m-schmoock> thats my 'problem'. I can only host couple hundred electrum connections before the server gets in serious troubles 05:26 < m-schmoock> Especially since the electrum DDos attacks 05:28 < m-schmoock> Even though I use raid to get twice the dist read performance 05:28 < m-schmoock> HDD and Crypto totally sucks ^^ 05:28 < t0mix> since segwit, the chain is growing much faster. it will get worse. .. bad bad segwit ^_^ 05:29 < m-schmoock> Hopefully the Bitcoin chain never gets too big for an affordable SDD 05:29 < m-schmoock> I would support 300Kb blocks. I even would support UASFing the thing on the community 05:30 < m-schmoock> Most People dont realize the power of UASF as it forces the rest in danger of reorg once their hashrate get too low (even in 100 years in the future) 05:30 < m-schmoock> So 300Kb blocks can absolutly be a thing sooner than most ppl think 05:31 < m-schmoock> The 1Mb+Segwit chain will have to do a Hardfork/Block invalidation/Timestamp in order to not be overtaken by the 300Kb chain at anytime in the future 05:31 < m-schmoock> _thats the UASF power_ 05:32 < m-schmoock> and it will drive LN adoption like crazy, which is also very healthy 05:32 < t0mix> I guess we can expect +100G/year to chain if we don't go for smaller blocks. which seems a lot. but meh.. I don't know. I would support 300kB, too. but I would also listen counter-arguments. 05:33 < m-schmoock> question is if counter arguments are meaningful, once you have slight support for UASF blocksize decrease, it can only grow from there on 05:34 < m-schmoock> there is really no point in betting against a softfork 05:34 < t0mix> 300kB with softfork? 05:35 < m-schmoock> sure, decreasing the blocksize will always be a softfork 05:35 < m-schmoock> thats the 'problem' of people that like to maintain at 1Mb 05:35 < m-schmoock> because they need the hardfork or get reorg 05:36 < m-schmoock> my prediction: 300Kb blocks before next halfing :D (whishful thinking) 05:36 < t0mix> I don't get it, why hardfork or reorg =| 05:37 < m-schmoock> because 300 KB bocks are totally compatible to a 1Mb block node 05:37 < m-schmoock> And once the 300Kb softfork chain gets economic majority, 1MB is basically dead 05:38 < m-schmoock> then its only a matter of time once the stronger chain reorgs/overwrites its 1MB brother 05:38 < m-schmoock> thats why I think its totally likely we see a 300KB softfork upgrade even with very little initial support 05:38 < t0mix> with schnorr, fees in 300kB blocks wouldn't even hurt so much 05:39 < m-schmoock> with LN neither 05:40 < m-schmoock> Once people realize that the 300Kb chain will be economically viable (especially far in the future), support for 1Mb will decrease, this will decrease the chance of its survival, ... on and on it goes and it will turn into a self fullfilling prophecy 05:41 < m-schmoock> only question: why not 100Kb ? :D 05:42 < m-schmoock> I think guys like Luke currently underestimate the support his proposal already has, and that just a small initial support is really enough 05:43 < t0mix> I would welcome smaller chain to work on :) I think some balance in fees is kind of important, too =D paying half million sat to get into block might be a little over the top =D 05:43 < m-schmoock> anyway, I think Bitcoin will also be fine with 1Mb 05:49 < t0mix> this is hard stuff. I feel indecision pressure just growing in my mind :'D 05:49 < m-schmoock> qed. 05:51 < m-schmoock> There is really no point in being agains a softfork forming consensus. Its understandable, as it forces oneself to make a hardfork, but at that point one admitted to not being Bitcoin anymore 05:51 < m-schmoock> Consensus is just so much better than democracy :D 05:51 < t0mix> oh it is. but consensus signaling is hard to read in begining. 05:52 < m-schmoock> when a handful of the old guys signal thei UASF support, you know its already written in stone :D 05:53 < m-schmoock> its like switching from Fiat to Bitcoin. This is basically a one way street 05:53 < m-schmoock> if you still trade, your not there yet ^^ 05:54 < t0mix> I don't.. if I only bought and held I would do MUCH better. you never know when bitcoin skyrockets. I'm not going to risk loosing any. 05:55 < t0mix> but I didn't notice any signals, yet =D 05:56 < m-schmoock> 10 years+ best asset of the world is a pretty decent signal hard to ignore 05:56 < m-schmoock> still people argue 05:58 < t0mix> I mean UASF signal 05:58 < blockstream_bot> [t0mix kin, irc.freenode.net] I mean UASF signal 05:58 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-myppjszzigdpzwdf] has left #c-lightning [] 05:58 < m-schmoock> ? 05:58 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-myppjszzigdpzwdf] has joined #c-lightning 05:58 < t0mix> ? 05:58 < m-schmoock> dafu, lol @ blockstream_bot 05:58 < t0mix> seems like UASF signal parser? =D 05:59 < t0mix> no.. not this time =/ dafu 06:00 < t0mix> I mean UASF signal 06:00 < t0mix> .. nothing.. lol 06:15 < molz> m-schmoock, the reason UASF succeeded was because most nodes already updated to segwit, so there was an overwhelming support for segwit, it just had to happen :) 06:48 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 06:58 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:59 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning 07:16 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 07:29 < m-schmoock> molz: UASF succeeded because people realized that hashrate is meaningless when it comes to economic majority 07:30 < m-schmoock> emporers new clothes turned out to be exactly that 07:46 < m-schmoock> I try to debug the getroute command. Im struggling to tell it to accept an exclude list from the cli. It always fails with JSON parsing errors. 07:47 < m-schmoock> i.e. lightning-cli getroute -k id=022368baffc9c5a46e7e0aa9690dd753cba2889e42498369c3643efbb422b492f9 msatoshi=11760173msat riskfactor=1 fromid=0260d9119979caedc570ada883ff614c6efb93f7f7382e25d73ecbeba0b62df2d7 exclude="['1511205x23x0/0', '1511205x23x0/1', '1515136x109x0/0']" 07:47 < m-schmoock> fails with log: " Invalid token in json input: ..." 07:47 < m-schmoock> (because of the exclude list, but im not seeing my mistake) 07:49 < m-schmoock> lol, it doesnt like the quotes " at the exclude string. so I have to remove all whitespaces and make it as one string 08:05 < m-schmoock> cdecker: it looks like getroute doesnt check if capacity would fit for channels it owns. It should automatically exclude channels from which it knows for sure that a given msatoshi amount would not currently fit, right? 08:08 < m-schmoock> if you carefully contruct a route to yourself with a given amount higher than your channel incoming capacity, it will still return that as a route 08:11 < m-schmoock> I am currently handling that by doing exclude list for my own channels where payment would not fit, but it raises further problems... 08:11 < m-schmoock> -QQQQ°_° (a worm) 09:41 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #c-lightning 09:48 <@cdecker> 2ood point m-schmoock, own channel handling is a bit different from the others, but we should definitely check capacity ^^ 11:21 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 12:09 < m-schmoock> cdecker: having the code inplace to 'know' about certain liquidity at certain channels, will give us the opportinity to expose an API too feed about such knowledge (i.e. the probe plugin in an advanced way) 12:10 < m-schmoock> also, we should make a probability distribution about channel size and balanced state, so we can nudge towards channels so big that its unlikely to fail on a route of N hops. 12:13 < m-schmoock> i.e. if channel is 100ksat big, the payment is 10ksat, theres something like a ~10% chance it fails due to inbalanced state. we should add these up along the route, so we have a probable failure rate of a given route with N hops 12:15 < m-schmoock> (unless of course we are already doing such a thing, not an expert at routing yet) 12:15 < m-schmoock> im just messing aroung with it 13:06 -!- darosior [52ff9820@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.255.152.32] has joined #c-lightning 14:41 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Air has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 15:21 -!- darosior [52ff9820@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.255.152.32] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 15:39 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 15:56 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has joined #c-lightning 16:05 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 17:53 -!- StopAndDecrypt [~StopAndDe@unaffiliated/stopanddecrypt] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 17:54 -!- StopAndDecrypt [~StopAndDe@unaffiliated/stopanddecrypt] has joined #c-lightning 18:10 -!- Kostenko [~Kostenko@dsl-154-81.bl26.telepac.pt] has joined #c-lightning 19:00 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:01 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning 19:14 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #c-lightning 19:23 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S010660e327dca171.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 19:31 -!- Amperture [~amp@24.136.5.183] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 20:59 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #c-lightning 21:01 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 22:25 -!- ulrichard [~richi@dzcpe6300borminfo01-e0.static-hfc.datazug.ch] has joined #c-lightning 23:19 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 23:56 -!- spinza [~spin@155.93.246.187] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] --- Log closed Mon May 27 00:00:25 2019