--- Day changed Fri Aug 18 2017 00:24 -!- dsf_ [589f1882@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.159.24.130] has joined #lnd 00:24 -!- dsf_ [589f1882@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.159.24.130] has quit [Client Quit] 00:47 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.9] 00:50 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 01:27 -!- vicenteH [~user@195.235.96.150] has joined #lnd 01:54 -!- vicenteH [~user@195.235.96.150] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:54 -!- vicenteH [~user@195.235.96.150] has joined #lnd 02:23 -!- panda111 [9140fef7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.64.254.247] has joined #lnd 02:24 < panda111> Hi! I have a quick question. Is it possible to run lnd on litecoin tesnet4 at the moment? 02:24 < panda111> The btcd dependency is confusing me 02:24 -!- woddy [~woddy@unaffiliated/woddy] has joined #lnd 02:25 < molz> panda111, btcd is for bitcoin, you have to get ltcd 02:26 < panda111> ok, I see, do you have an official repo by any hand? 02:27 -!- woddy [~woddy@unaffiliated/woddy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:28 -!- woddy [~woddy@unaffiliated/woddy] has joined #lnd 02:28 < panda111> ah, got it! https://github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd 02:28 < panda111> Thanks! 02:38 -!- JackH [~laptop@46.231.18.66] has joined #lnd 02:43 -!- panda111 [9140fef7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.64.254.247] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 02:44 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:04 -!- stevenroose [~steven@vps.weuste.club] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 03:07 -!- stevenroose [~steven@vps.weuste.club] has joined #lnd 03:29 -!- alt0id [~jacks@pulsar.1337.cx] has quit [Quit: leaving] 03:32 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:06 -!- riclas [riclas@72.210.189.46.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #lnd 04:06 -!- horlicks [ab61cb90@gateway/web/freenode/ip.171.97.203.144] has joined #lnd 04:07 -!- horlicks [ab61cb90@gateway/web/freenode/ip.171.97.203.144] has left #lnd [] 04:12 -!- horlicks_ [~simon@tickle.compsoc.man.ac.uk] has joined #lnd 04:41 -!- rabidus is now known as niinanemustakyrp 04:42 -!- niinanemustakyrp is now known as Jonuz 04:43 -!- Jonuz is now known as rabidus 04:43 -!- icechip [~i@user-94-254-144-122.play-internet.pl] has joined #lnd 04:53 < rafalcpp> in Eclair wallet, do you know how to connect 2 nodes (on two phones) together to each other? 04:54 < rafalcpp> btw wallet says fee rate 1000 satoshi/kW ... what is that kW ? 05:01 -!- woddy [~woddy@unaffiliated/woddy] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:32 -!- achiko [5e64eddf@gateway/web/freenode/ip.94.100.237.223] has joined #lnd 05:34 -!- achiko [5e64eddf@gateway/web/freenode/ip.94.100.237.223] has quit [Client Quit] 06:19 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd 06:32 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 06:48 < molz> kilobyte per weight? 07:00 -!- alt0id [~bonehead@194.28.128.125] has joined #lnd 07:00 < alt0id> hello 07:00 -!- Iskungen [~hi@h-14-184.A328.priv.bahnhof.se] has joined #lnd 07:01 -!- HeySteve [~0000@unaffiliated/heysteve] has joined #lnd 07:03 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has joined #lnd 07:10 -!- HeySteve [~0000@unaffiliated/heysteve] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:16 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:29 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has joined #lnd 07:43 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 07:46 -!- Yash [~Yash@2a02:c207:2008:7615::1] has left #lnd [] 07:50 -!- JackH [~laptop@46.231.18.66] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:00 -!- Guest85719 [~takinbo@skyhammer.akinbo.org] has joined #lnd 08:12 -!- Sentineo [~Undefined@node.chcembitcoin.sk] has joined #lnd 08:21 -!- Guest85719 [~takinbo@skyhammer.akinbo.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:27 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd 08:35 -!- vicenteH [~user@195.235.96.150] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:35 -!- Guest89468 [~takinbo@skyhammer.akinbo.org] has joined #lnd 08:37 -!- HeySteve [~0000@unaffiliated/heysteve] has joined #lnd 09:14 -!- mnkk___ [~mnk4@ip5f5ae92a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 09:30 -!- eamonnw [~eamonnw@iceland.sdf.org] has joined #lnd 09:34 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #lnd 10:14 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has joined #lnd 10:36 -!- vicenteH [~user@13.232.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #lnd 10:36 -!- Guest89468 [~takinbo@skyhammer.akinbo.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:42 -!- Iskungen [~hi@h-14-184.A328.priv.bahnhof.se] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:47 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:49 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has joined #lnd 10:53 -!- vicenteH [~user@13.232.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:16 -!- vicenteH [~user@13.232.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #lnd 11:45 -!- alt0id [~bonehead@194.28.128.125] has quit [Quit: leaving] 11:55 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.9] 11:58 -!- galileopy [~galileopy@47.142.180.194] has joined #lnd 12:05 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef pushed 1 new commit to master: https://git.io/v5efz 12:05 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master f67ce4e Alex: main: fix TLS cert autogen and server configuration 12:11 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:17 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef pushed 1 new commit to master: https://git.io/v5eJA 12:17 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 65dede2 Olaoluwa Osuntokun: peer: ensure chan sends to breachArbiter can't block indefinitely... 12:27 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has joined #lnd 12:28 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 12:28 -!- johanth [uid223041@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vacezddstcziodwi] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 12:36 -!- esotericnonsense [~esoteric@unaffiliated/esotericnonsense] has joined #lnd 12:37 < Emcy> what happens to any lightning channels open before a contentious hardfork, after the hf 12:37 < Emcy> does the LN get doubled or something 12:37 < Emcy> or cloned 12:38 < Emcy> all channels would be valid on the fork chain, but the actual connections wouldnt exist? 12:39 < Emcy> its hurting my brain 12:40 < esotericnonsense> vague brain dumps with limited knowledge - depends on replay protection or not I would think 12:40 < aakselrod> you can pretty much expect that the way the channel settles will be the same on both forks unless you splice in a new UTXO into the channel that's already split between the forks, and this isn't really supported by any software yet 12:41 < Emcy> assume no replay protection...... 12:42 < aakselrod> the LN software will only pay attention to one of the underlying chains though, depending on what node software it's talking to 12:43 < Emcy> ok. but you could fork its state to use a HF chain instead and carry on? 12:43 < Emcy> but literally the tcp sockets will not exist like the do on the original system 12:44 < Emcy> it would be a weird thing where a load of LN channel opens exist on the HF chain, but not corresponding LN overlay 12:45 < Emcy> what a mess 12:52 < aakselrod> even more weird is if your node is on one side of the split and a peer with which you have a channel is on the other side 12:53 < Emcy> oh......thats sounds bad 12:53 < Emcy> and no replay protection because jeff is a baby 12:53 < aakselrod> coin splitting will still be possible 12:53 < Emcy> so you close a channel and it closes in a goddamn parallel universe too 13:17 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd 13:18 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:19 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #lnd 13:47 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@unaffiliated/alina-malina] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 13:49 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 13:54 < esotericnonsense> so I'm waiting for the testnet chain to download and dealing with the LN whitepaper atm, but wondering about how network topology is likely to work 13:54 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:55 < esotericnonsense> for example I can see that it makes sense for say, bitstamp and bitfinex to open channels to each other and tie up some capital because it is likely that at least one user will want to make this transfer and they can extract fees from it 13:55 < esotericnonsense> but does it make sense for an individual entity that does not perform any (or minimal) bitcoin business to operate a node? given that they could only ever be a middleman, wouldn't routing try to bypass them? 13:56 < esotericnonsense> e.g. for someone to speculatively open channels to various services 13:57 < aakselrod> network topology is chosen by participating nodes... cool thing is, `lnd` now has autopilot mode with a preliminary heuristic (tend to connect to well-connected nodes to save on fees) but it's easy to plug in new heuristics that maximize metrics important to the node operator 13:57 < aakselrod> even better, it makes simulation-testing heuristics to see what kinds of node topologies emerge easier 13:57 < aakselrod> so expect lots of innovation in that area when LN goes into production 13:58 < aakselrod> and no, routing wouldn't try to bypass well-connected middlemen 13:58 < aakselrod> because it'd be cheaper to route through them 13:58 < aakselrod> fewer hops = lower fees 13:59 < Emcy> doesnt that tend to incentivise ultimately one giant LN hub serving every channel 13:59 < esotericnonsense> i suppose what I mean is that it seems rather winner-takes-all in the sense that if you have the option of connecting to A (with connections to B, C, D, E) and F (with connections to B, C, D, E, G, H, I, ...) then you will go for F? 13:59 -!- galileopy [~galileopy@47.142.180.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:00 < esotericnonsense> i.e. if I want to run a node with the aim of being well connected, i need to be 'close to optimal', or otherwise serve some niche 14:00 < aakselrod> Emcy: in the current, preliminary implementation, it does incentivize nodes with more channels... in future implementations, where we have more data with which to build better heuristics, not necessarily 14:01 < esotericnonsense> i guess you can have different strategies, like large amounts open to a few select services (so lower fees possible to those few services due to mainchain tx fee overhead?) 14:01 < aakselrod> especially in circumstances like meshnets where there's not any-to-any direct TCP connectivity 14:01 < esotericnonsense> vs. small amounts open to lots of services 14:02 < Emcy> would could trump the incentive of minimising hop fees by minimising hops? 14:02 < aakselrod> yes, esotericnonsense, and other optimizations... i doubt that the biggest market for LN will be merchants of physical goods and exchanges, for example 14:02 < aakselrod> in a more decentralized, machine-to-machine market, you'd need very well-distributed connectivity 14:03 < aakselrod> (think 21.co but on top of lightning rather than 1-1 payment channels or their custodial system) 14:04 < aakselrod> i personally see that type of use case outgrowing exchanges and traditional merchants by orders of magnitude over the next few years 14:04 < esotericnonsense> Emcy: so I've had very little time looking at this but it seems to me that tx fees (on the main chain) preclude someone with a lot of capital from just opening channels to everywhere 14:04 < molz> aakselrod, how about the gambling industry, can they use LN? 14:05 < esotericnonsense> Emcy: because you'd end up with a lot of pointless open channels which just end up burning tx fees when no-one transacts using them 14:05 < aakselrod> molz: i'm not much of a gambler myself but roasbeef came up with an off-chain dice game using ZKBoo 14:05 < molz> oh really 14:05 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:05 < aakselrod> but that's less "industry" and more "cottage industry" - just like the use case i was just talking about 14:06 < Emcy> esotericnonsense i see your point. But they could jsut get the customer to commit the bulk of the channel commitment, arguing that its likely to be mostly one way anyway + the 'value' of being no more than 2 hops away for everyone else 14:06 < Emcy> im worried about this tbh 14:07 < Emcy> how to incentivise the LN into being a flat-ish mesh instead? 14:07 < molz> esotericnonsense, you don't end up with pointless open channels unless you open those channels yourself 14:07 < Emcy> or at least looking like something that is highly federated, like email circa the 00s 14:08 < esotericnonsense> molz: right, i am talking about nodes deliberately positioning themselves along routes 14:08 < molz> i'll love for people to open a channel with me and just send me all their satoshis for nothing if they want :P 14:08 < esotericnonsense> molz: i.e. i start a node with the express aim of collecting fees 14:08 < molz> esotericnonsense, huh? 14:09 < aakselrod> the better connected your node is, the more fees you're likely to collect. nothing wrong with that, but it does create competition. 14:09 < molz> so far i've got no fees by openng channels with testers on testnet, what have i missed, aakselrod ? 14:09 < molz> nobody paid me! 14:09 < aakselrod> molz: so far, fee policy in lnd is to charge 0 fees :P 14:09 < esotericnonsense> molz: no-one sent through you presumably? :P 14:09 < aakselrod> that will change 14:09 < esotericnonsense> oh 14:09 < esotericnonsense> lol 14:09 < Emcy> you need at least 2 channels open to route anything 14:09 < molz> aakselrod, hhaha 14:09 < Emcy> one in and one out 14:09 < aakselrod> correct Emcy 14:10 < aakselrod> default autopilot policy now is to try to keep 5 channels open 14:10 < esotericnonsense> hm, in that case, why do i pay a fee using eclair wallet/starblocks demo? someone changed the defaults? :P 14:10 < aakselrod> you can change that with a switch 14:10 < aakselrod> esotericnonsense: eclair isn't lnd 14:10 < molz> aakselrod, i didn't like autopilot, sorry :/ 14:10 < esotericnonsense> aha 14:10 < molz> but i guess it's better now? 14:10 < aakselrod> molz: no worries... it was implemented in such a way that makes it easy to plug in improvements 14:11 < Emcy> in the future when opening a new channel is expensive af, why would most people have more than 1 open? Probably to some huge ass hub to maximize the utility of that channel 14:11 < Emcy> this is what im worried about 14:11 < aakselrod> it's a bit better now than when it was originally released, and it will continue to get better :) 14:11 < molz> Emcy, why 14:11 < molz> aakselrod, thanks, you guys are cool :) 14:11 < esotericnonsense> Emcy: so I thought of this as in some very round-about way as being similiar to proof of stake 14:12 < Emcy> im saying, consolidation pressure seems to be some kind of iron law in any capitalistic system, and how does LN cobat it 14:12 < aakselrod> Emcy: think longer-term, when everyone isn't connected to "the internet" through an ISP but through peers, paying for bandwidth in satoshis per megabyte 14:12 < esotericnonsense> Emcy: only in the sense that it means that owners of large amounts of btc can then operate nodes using it by opening a lot of channels 14:12 < aakselrod> you'll want to open channels to multiple physically-connected peers 14:12 < aakselrod> and payment channel connectivity will largely overlay physical connectivity 14:13 < esotericnonsense> you can consider it as being worse than, say, 'infinite size magic blocks', but it does give some preference to owners of btc over mining hardware owners 14:13 < Emcy> thats....a long time in the future 14:14 < molz> Emcy, do you know we now have bitcoin blocks streaming in outer space? 14:14 < aakselrod> Emcy: maybe, but it'll be a while before it gets too expensive to open/close channels, too, with the amount of block space pressure LN will help relieve 14:14 < Emcy> yes i know that 14:14 < molz> ah ok 14:15 < Emcy> ok. I hope to see the LN topology being as meshy as possible for all sorts of good reasons 14:15 < molz> aakselrod, do you think we can do LN txs even when we don't have the internet? 14:15 < molz> but if we can connect to a satellite, from what i understand about blocksat 14:15 < molz> or i'd better ask in a different channel then 14:16 < Emcy> you can use the sat to monitor your channel state without any direct connection to bitcoin proper for potentially a long time 14:16 < Emcy> which is nice 14:16 < molz> oh really 14:16 < Emcy> i think you peobably have to make sure you can contact bitcoin network on short notice though 14:16 < esotericnonsense> Emcy: if you trust the sat is broadcasting the best chain, no? 14:17 < Emcy> yes 14:17 < Emcy> probably a better than nothing situation 14:17 < Emcy> if you have a stall selling wet sponges in the desert maybe 14:17 < esotericnonsense> man, i hate myself for buying this 4gb laptop in the past. everything is fine about it other than its' 4gbiness and the ram is soldered in. 14:18 * esotericnonsense whyyyy. 14:19 < esotericnonsense> VM allocated 1GB to run btcd and that is just pushing it over the threshold of swapping out on web browsing. think i'm gonna have to look for some cheap NUC 14:19 < aakselrod> molz: yeah, you have to be able to broadcast a tx on short notice, but that could be done through meshnet that has eventual connectivity to the internet 14:19 < aakselrod> and you need transport-level connectivity to your LN peers 14:22 < Emcy> is there any way a LN tx could be done over bluetooth/NFc something like that 14:23 < aakselrod> nothing supports it now but theoretically, yes 14:23 < Emcy> without opening a channel specifically for it? 14:23 < Emcy> i mean, done offline in some fashion. No coverage area etc 14:24 < aakselrod> with both parties offline? 14:24 < aakselrod> meaning, both parties completely offline - not even meshnet connectivity? 14:25 < aakselrod> and no channel between those parties? 14:25 < aakselrod> in that case, no 14:25 < aakselrod> if one party's online, even through a meshnet, you could theoretically route through that party and pay for it 14:32 <@roasbeef> esotericnonsense: weird, I run lnd+btcd+irssi+other stuff on a single box with 1GB 14:33 <@roasbeef> no issues with that 14:33 -!- lightningbot1 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd 14:33 -!- lndbot [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd 14:33 < lightningbot1> just restarted 14:33 < lightningbot1> every month or so, it seems to crash 14:33 <@roasbeef> yaayy software! 14:34 < lightningbot1> been meaning to put in something to keep it up automatically but haven’t gotten around to it 14:34 <@roasbeef> molz: yeh there was a bug in the initial autopilot, fixed now in master, and have one final tweak locally that'll go out along with this big upcoming push 14:34 < esotericnonsense> roasbeef: the software itself is fine. it's the overhead of VM and also that firefox nails RAM with modern websites, heh. i'm starting to think it makes sense to have one machine for web browsing (that can have 64GB ram) and one for everything else (that can have 64MB) 14:34 <@roasbeef> man, after I got banned from freenode, all my windows are all diff now lol 14:34 < esotericnonsense> or i can turn JS off and watch nothing work. :D 14:35 < aakselrod> i use noscript in firefox 14:35 < aakselrod> enable it for the sites i use but not their ad partners :P 14:38 < Emcy> lol i got klined too 14:38 < Emcy> freenode paniced 14:38 <@roasbeef> heh yeh I was confused af 14:38 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has joined #lnd 14:39 < molz> oh cool, thanks, roasbeef and aakselrod, for all the work you guys been doing :) 14:40 < aakselrod> :) 14:41 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd 14:41 < molz> roasbeef, i remember a few years ago freenode got dossed in the summer, mostly in july... and it was down.. servers weren't connected for hours .. fun time .. lol 15:03 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 15:03 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com] 15:04 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 15:30 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:33 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has joined #lnd 15:56 -!- lndbot1 [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd 15:56 -!- lightningbot2 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd 16:09 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 16:12 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 16:22 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 16:25 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 17:23 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:31 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] aakselrod opened pull request #257: lnd_test: reverse the order of teardown for lnd and btcd harnesses (master...reverse-test-lnd-btcd-teardown) https://git.io/v5ewA 17:52 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has joined #lnd 18:07 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:22 -!- riclas [riclas@72.210.189.46.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:12 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 20:53 -!- batmanandrobin [481b5933@gateway/web/freenode/ip.72.27.89.51] has joined #lnd 20:58 < batmanandrobin> hi guys. I've been trying to get the https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-coindesk lightning coindesk deployed, but I keep getting an error from LND saying "failed to complete security handshake. first record does not look like a TLS handshake". When I change the LND_RPCHOST URL to a https:// url, it just hangs 20:58 < batmanandrobin> has anyone else had this issue? 21:25 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@ec2-54-175-255-176.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #lnd 21:43 -!- batmanandrobin [481b5933@gateway/web/freenode/ip.72.27.89.51] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:06 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:06 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #lnd 22:12 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@ec2-54-175-255-176.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:16 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@ec2-54-175-255-176.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #lnd 22:21 -!- jimpo [~jimpo@ec2-54-175-255-176.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:51 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:53 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 22:59 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 23:02 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd 23:22 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] bryanvu opened pull request #258: test: reposition context creation and extend TLS timeout (master...contexttimeout) https://git.io/v5eyl 23:33 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 23:36 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.81] has joined #lnd