--- Day changed Fri Jul 21 2017 00:00 -!- JackH [~laptop@46.231.18.66] has joined #lnd 01:18 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 04:36 -!- rabbit__ [cbdcbeb8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.203.220.190.184] has joined #lnd 05:04 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:27 < afdudley> is there a way to specify which UTXOs enter a payment channel? 05:43 < afdudley> Can lightning be used to collect dust? 06:27 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] AndrewSamokhvalov opened pull request #234: Add payment circuit persistence (master...add_circuit_persistance_2) https://git.io/v7U6T 06:32 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.9.19.107] has joined #lnd 06:47 < betawaffle> afdudley: it still needs a funding tx on the blockchain, so spending dust will still cost 06:48 < afdudley> Right, I keep forgetting that although the time can be extended on channels adding funds isn't possible? 07:05 < betawaffle> afdudley: adding funds is equivalent to a single tx close+open 07:05 < betawaffle> same for removing funds 07:06 < betawaffle> but that tx *also* costs an on-chain fee 07:06 < betawaffle> the only way to collect dust is for a miner to mine you a favorable tx 07:06 < betawaffle> they would be paying the cost of the dust collection, basically 07:06 < afdudley> doesn't the whole funding handshake thing have to restart? that's what you're saying? 07:07 < betawaffle> but someone has to pay 07:07 < betawaffle> afdudley: not completely 07:07 < afdudley> dust seems like a huge issue, am I missing something? 07:07 < betawaffle> you can use the previous commitment as input to the new funding tx 07:07 < betawaffle> (i presume) 07:07 < betawaffle> afdudley: it absolutely is an issue, yes ;) 07:07 < afdudley> hmm. I feel like I asked this before... and the answer was, "might as well setup a new channel" 07:08 < betawaffle> afdudley: depends on how dusty the dust is 07:08 < betawaffle> larger outputs become dust as fees rise 07:08 < afdudley> and only one UTXO can be used to fund a channel? 07:09 < betawaffle> and dust becomes non-dust when fees go down (presumably) 07:09 < betawaffle> afdudley: no, as many as you want to pay for 07:09 < afdudley> betawaffle: right, it's a network extrinsic scaling problem. 07:10 < betawaffle> dust can be paid for off-chain, or consolidation can be donated by a miner 07:10 < afdudley> wait, so can't I effectively save money by putting multiple UTXOs into the payment channel? or does the funding step scale lineraly in size with the number of UTXOs? 07:11 < betawaffle> yeah, you save on marginal cost by using multiple inputs 07:11 < betawaffle> but dust can be below the marginal cost of an input 07:11 < betawaffle> at which point you're only losing money by spending it 07:11 < afdudley> But i could also just send the dust to myself and not use a payment channel at all. 07:11 < betawaffle> same problem 07:11 < betawaffle> a tx is a t 07:11 < betawaffle> tx* 07:12 < afdudley> right, that's what i mean, there is no benefit from using a payment channel in that case. 07:12 < betawaffle> correct 07:12 < betawaffle> afdudley: however! 07:12 < betawaffle> using a payment channel *could* allow you to conduct more useful transactions with that money than you otherwise could 07:13 < betawaffle> if you consolidate first, you'd still lose yet more on the channel open 07:13 < afdudley> LN obviously helps not create dust in the first place, but what is and is not dust seems fundamentally problematic. 07:13 < betawaffle> yep, it's all based on the current fee rate 07:14 < betawaffle> (and the min fee rate too) 07:14 < betawaffle> 1 sat/B still has a dust level 07:16 < afdudley> dust is a pretty big design wart. There are a number of incentive issues around it, i'm sure people talked this to death years ago, so I'll stop :D 07:16 < betawaffle> if you could get the marginal cost of an input below 1 sat, dust wouldn't be a problem anymore 07:16 < betawaffle> afdudley: dust just increases deflation ;) 07:23 -!- JackH [~laptop@46.231.18.66] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 08:32 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@093-092-177-222-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 08:32 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@095-129-170-117-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has joined #lnd 08:44 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@095-129-170-117-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 08:52 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@095-129-170-117-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has joined #lnd 09:04 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lcuyieiwfvopotkk] has joined #lnd 10:14 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@unaffiliated/alina-malina] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 10:18 -!- Deadhand [~deadhand@CPEf0f249a14e43-CMf0f249a14e40.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 10:18 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 10:21 -!- Deadhand [~deadhand@CPEf0f249a14e43-CMf0f249a14e40.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #lnd 10:23 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Changing host] 10:23 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@unaffiliated/alina-malina] has joined #lnd 10:26 <@roasbeef> afdudley: atm lnd does auto coin selection, but it's possible that the rpc API gets extended to allow you to select _particular_ utxos to use to the funding tx 10:27 <@roasbeef> afdudley: adding funds to a channel is possible,cdecker calls it "splicing" in/out. you can do it in a where there's only a single transcatino in chain, and normal process can continue while waiting for it to confirm 10:27 <@roasbeef> many UTOX"s can be used 10:27 < afdudley> So, splicing dust does seems useful. 10:27 < afdudley> not super useful, but a little useful. 10:27 < afdudley> should have this conversation here or the other channel? :D 10:28 <@roasbeef> i consider it an opporunity to consolidate utxo's as well via "chubby coin selection", meaning to over-subcsribe a channel by some margin in the case that it's possible to elminate extra change, so you want a 1BTC channel but it makes a 1.1BTC channel in order to avoid that extra change output 10:28 < afdudley> interesting, I don't think I quite get the UTXO model to appreciate how that would work :D 10:42 < betawaffle> roasbeef: lightning channels don't need to start out balanced, right? 10:44 < aakselrod> they usually start out very unbalanced in a single direction at this point 11:16 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 11:53 -!- cdecker is now known as cdecker|afk 11:58 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:16 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 12:34 -!- riclas [~riclas@72.210.189.46.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #lnd 14:17 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:58 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 15:49 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 16:01 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 16:53 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 17:06 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 18:42 -!- riclas [~riclas@72.210.189.46.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:26 -!- sh_smith [foobar@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:28 -!- sh_smith [foobar@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 20:29 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lcuyieiwfvopotkk] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 21:49 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 22:41 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd