--- Day changed Mon Mar 19 2018 00:20 -!- monsry [af88dfd0@gateway/web/freenode/ip.175.136.223.208] has joined #lnd 00:21 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lnd 00:25 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:40 -!- monsry [af88dfd0@gateway/web/freenode/ip.175.136.223.208] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 00:41 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 263 seconds] 00:58 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 01:00 -!- gaf_ [~fag@12.smos-linux.org] has quit [Quit: SMOS - http://smos-linux.org] 01:02 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [Client Quit] 01:03 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 01:09 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 01:21 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lnd 01:23 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [] 01:24 -!- gaf_ [~fag@12.smos-linux.org] has joined #lnd 01:24 < Veggen> Is it currently possible (even if difficult) to create more fine-grained macaroons? 01:25 < Veggen> I'd for example like a macaroon for *only* being able to generate an invoice. 01:26 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:32 -!- jungly [~quassel@79.8.200.97] has joined #lnd 01:35 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@cpe-67-240-56-42.nycap.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: colatkinson] 01:36 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@cpe-67-240-56-42.nycap.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 01:38 -!- wump is now known as wumpus 01:40 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #lnd 01:40 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:00 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 02:02 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #lnd 02:02 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:04 < raucao> still having that TLS issue trying to use lncli with a local node: 02:04 < raucao> [lncli] unable to generate seed: rpc error: code = Internal desc = connection error: desc = "transport: authentication handshake failed: remote error: tls: handshake failure" 02:05 < raucao> anyone knows why it's using tls with a local node and/or how to fix it? 02:07 < Styil> well you clearly want to disable tls unless you think your computer is lying to itself 02:08 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:10 < Styil> huh 02:10 < Styil> doesnt seem you can do that 02:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:22 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd 02:22 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lnd 02:24 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@cpe-67-240-56-42.nycap.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: colatkinson] 02:26 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:27 -!- someone235_ [~androirc@unaffiliated/someone235] has joined #lnd 02:33 -!- someone235_ [~androirc@unaffiliated/someone235] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:34 -!- creslin [~textual@deposing-waterfront.volia.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 02:38 -!- richard87_ [~richard87@237.92-221-98.customer.lyse.net] has joined #lnd 02:39 -!- richard87 [~richard87@237.92-221-98.customer.lyse.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 02:39 -!- richard87_ is now known as richard87 02:40 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 02:51 < raucao> Styil: yer, and that seems weird, doesn't it 02:55 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:08 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 03:17 -!- aakselrod [aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:18 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd 03:21 < Veggen> raucau: delete the tls.* files and restarted? 03:26 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:48 -!- someone235_ [~androirc@unaffiliated/someone235] has joined #lnd 03:49 < someone235_> Hi, someone knows what's an elkrem tree? 03:49 < someone235_> I saw this term used in the mailing list, but I didn't find what it means 03:51 -!- JohnC [3306591a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.51.6.89.26] has joined #lnd 03:51 -!- JohnC is now known as PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A 03:51 -!- PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A [3306591a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.51.6.89.26] has quit [Client Quit] 03:52 -!- PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A [3306591a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.51.6.89.26] has joined #lnd 03:52 -!- someone235_ [~androirc@unaffiliated/someone235] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:53 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> Hi guys, I have a real quick question. Is there anyway to set the sat/byte on-chain transaction fee for the autopilot? I can't seem to find it :( 03:56 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lnd 04:06 -!- offerm [c7cb6522@gateway/web/freenode/ip.199.203.101.34] has joined #lnd 04:10 -!- ajph_ [~ajph@unaffiliated/ajph] has joined #lnd 04:10 < pierce> trying to upgrade my lnd, any idea what the deal with this message is? segwit address exists in wallet, can't upgrade from v4 to v5: well, we tried ¯_(ツ)_/¯ 04:11 < pierce> lnd no longer supporting segwit or something? 04:11 -!- ajph [~ajph@unaffiliated/ajph] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:12 < pierce> can't seem to find any options to export and import old keys, am I just supposed to wipe everything and start over or something? 04:17 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd 04:18 -!- creslin [~textual@deposing-waterfront.volia.net] has joined #lnd 04:27 -!- offerm [c7cb6522@gateway/web/freenode/ip.199.203.101.34] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 04:31 -!- eamonnw [~eamonnw@iceland.sdf.org] has joined #lnd 04:38 -!- Basil [3ed82bae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.216.43.174] has joined #lnd 04:38 -!- Basil is now known as Guest4823 04:41 < Veggen> pierce: Did you recently upgrade? 04:42 < pierce> Veggen: yes, this happens when I run the 0.4 beta 04:42 < Veggen> pierce: yolu might try to downgrade to old, reopen, send off all funds, then wipe and start over. 04:43 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has joined #lnd 04:43 < Veggen> pierce: before 09.4 beta, that was pretty much expected behavior. You need to watch *very* carefully for when to close channels and send off funds. 04:44 < pierce> yeah, I closed all the channels, and waited a bit, but for some reason only half of my funds seemed to show up again. not sure if I need to wait longer, or of those funds are gone. 04:44 < pierce> what's the issue with watching carefully, what is it to watch for? 04:44 < Veggen> if you force-closed, it might take longer. 04:44 < Veggen> pierce: irc-channel, git logs, etc :) 04:45 < pierce> is it like a two week thing? 04:46 < pierce> Veggen: also is there a way to export the keys I had in the old lnd? maybe I could import them into a bitcoind or something to move funds easier? 04:46 < Veggen> not so far. 04:47 < Veggen> that functionality isn't implemented yet. 04:47 < pierce> oke dokey. any idea how long I should wait after force closing channels to see what comes back to me? 04:47 < Veggen> pierce: between a couple of days and two weeks, yes. 04:47 < Veggen> lncli pendingchannels will show at which block height it is fully closed. 04:49 < pierce> okay. yeah, somehow my bitcoind was pruning more than it should be, I set it to prune at 30g but it seems to be pruning at 12g, so I had to resync on a larger drive to get the chain history to close some of the channels I had open 04:49 < Veggen> many people just let it be, then just starts it periodically to see if the funds has got there. 04:49 < Veggen> I don't think LND really does support running towards pruned node. 04:49 < Veggen> yet. 04:50 < pierce> oh cool, that limbo_balance seems to be holding the rest of the coins I thought I had 04:50 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has quit [Quit: dionysus69] 04:51 < pierce> well, it does work on pruned nodes, I think everything is fine until some of the channel open point thingys go out of the prune window 04:52 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has joined #lnd 04:54 < pierce> okay, so maturity_height is when the channel gets closed unilaterally for reals then? super useful information, thanks :-) 04:55 < Veggen> yah. 04:55 < pierce> looks like I'll get my biggest chunk of coins back at 514415, about 30 hours from now 04:57 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:57 < pierce> I have some pending channels with a limbo_balance that have a maturity_height of 0, any idea what that means? 05:01 -!- bloabs [adefec50@gateway/web/freenode/ip.173.239.236.80] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 05:01 < Veggen> not submitted to blockchain yet, usually. 05:02 < Veggen> see if the tx is found in a block explorer with confirmations, or unconfirmed. 05:02 < pierce> is there something I need to retransmit or something? 05:02 < Veggen> nope. 05:02 -!- attilio [~attilio@cm-84.210.20.218.getinternet.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 05:02 < Veggen> it's in mempool but not in a block. 05:03 < pierce> hmm, I see closing_txid with 369 confirms 05:05 < pierce> ah, actually that one has limbo_balance of 0, another with a higher limbo_balance I do not see on blockchain.info 05:05 < Veggen> uh...not at all? 05:05 -!- attilio [~attilio@cm-84.210.20.218.getinternet.no] has joined #lnd 05:07 < pierce> channel_point is dfac3b588bdc78c854dc4e734cd87e3c9fe9ec1d8a3423547840394a40100558:1 closing_txid is dbf62c231048b9d0fbaf92a75f7422257870d0c3332872f2549926104472f0e8 limbo_balance is 202430 05:07 < pierce> cloising_txid isn't on any block explorer 05:07 < Veggen> testnet I presume? 05:08 < pierce> no, this is mainnet 05:10 < Veggen> I don't see it either. 05:11 < pierce> it's only like 16 dollars, so no super worried about losing it, just trying to figure out what state the channel is in, seems odd 05:11 < pierce> it's in the pending_force_closing_channels in the pendingchannels list 05:15 < Veggen> when did you force-close? 05:17 < pierce> hmm, looks like it was my channel to bitrefill at 039514e5d704c59a0eba65d25fc5fe559a1641243ccdf80c980b1fc10ca9c30ca2, I think I would have closed it a few days ago, right after the 0.4 release announcement 05:18 < pierce> that was when I first saw that segwit error, and decided to close all my channels, scrub wallet, etc 05:23 < pierce> Veggen: do you know if there's a way I can print the raw tx if I need to tx_push it or something? 05:25 < k1234> question #1: if a channel is not active, does lnd autopilot close it after a set amount of time? 05:26 < k1234> question #2: my lnd is up and running and connected, but I can't see it here: https://graph.lndexplorer.com/ why? Do I have to have --externalip set? 05:27 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> k1234: Answer #1: I'm *guessing* (I'm no LND dev) no: https://github.com/LN-Zap/zap-desktop/issues/179 05:27 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> k1234: Answer #2: Do you have any channels open? Did you use `--private` when making those channels? 05:28 < k1234> re: question#2: just showed up (lndexplorer.com must refresh every few min). 05:28 < k1234> re: question#1: thanks! 05:29 < Veggen> those explorers are really not suitable to judge anbything by. 05:29 < k1234> to clarify re: question#1: user must manually close channels? I thought this was the point of autopilot. 05:29 < k1234> Veggen: agreed. But I like seeing my tiny role in this great experiment on screen! ;P 05:43 < k1234> so... now 2 of my 3 channels are inactive... how does autopilot handle this? should I close the channels or wait (hope) they become active again soon? 05:48 -!- yhDhole [~riqrog@179.177.121.8.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br] has joined #lnd 05:48 -!- yhDhole [~riqrog@179.177.121.8.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br] has quit [Client Quit] 06:00 < Veggen> don't close. 06:00 < Veggen> inactive just means other node is not online. 06:01 < Veggen> if you close, you have to force-close and locks up your funds for days even. 06:06 < Veggen> now, of course sooner or later you might give up on them. but I'd let it go some days. 06:09 < k1234> veggen: thx 06:11 < lndbot1> someone235_: an elkrem tree is an inverted merkle tree. (I can't see if you're still here though) 06:11 < lndbot1> so a merkle tree takes a set of data, chunks it, hashes each chunk, then takes each hash and hashes it again (possibly more than one time) to arrive at a single hash that represents all of the data 06:14 < lndbot1> an elkrem tree goes the other way, taking data and splitting it out into merkle leaves and branches 06:15 < lndbot1> it's similar to how HD wallets work, where you can take a root key and deterministically create any number of child keys from it 06:16 -!- Guest4823 [3ed82bae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.216.43.174] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 06:20 < Veggen> k1234: And if it's on mainnet, and it's created from their end, I'd not close an inactive channel unless I absolutely had to. 06:20 < Veggen> simply because in that case, they have paid real money in fees to open it. 06:21 < k1234> veggen: got it. thanks. these channels ARE on mainnet, but I created them (ie: my autopilot did). It is strange, though: all of my channels have gone inactive within 12 hours... Assuming it's just because it is early days. But it seems like AutoPilot should connect to "stable" (not sure how to define this) channels.... 06:22 < k1234> any suggestions on how to remedy this? IE: should I manually open 1 or 2 channels with "stable" nodes (only way I know to define this is if channels have lots of connections, such as > 20) 06:23 < Veggen> this is the reason I don't do autopilot now. 06:24 < k1234> got it. so: I should open channels manually with a few select nodes. How should I choose the nodes? 06:24 < Veggen> I only do manual connections to people I know are on the same page as me, i.e. interested in creating a stable network. 06:24 < k1234> I'm on that page. 06:25 < k1234> Any suggestions of nodes to connect to? (And, FTR: auto pilot should be able to create a stable network among people running it, otherwise it isn't "trustless") 06:25 < Veggen> ok. If you want, you can connect to me. 06:25 < k1234> I assume that's the goal. but again, it's early days. 06:25 < k1234> sure. pubkey? 06:25 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 06:25 < Veggen> 02b7060f74b7e04d3d8af97fab20381fcc16f7a33c7e526fa5c9b96afdb288d7d2@62.16.141.195:9735 06:26 < Veggen> as you said, early days. 06:26 < k1234> thx. incoming! 06:26 < Veggen> If you push amt to my side, I'll refund you onchain if you give me an address. 06:27 < Veggen> that's of course totally non-trustless. 06:27 < k1234> thx. 06:27 < k1234> so, learning this as I go: is the command: lncli openchannel 02b7060f74b7e04d3d8af97fab20381fcc16f7a33c7e526fa5c9b96afdb288d7d2@62.16.141.195:9735 06:27 < BB-Martino> first you connect 06:27 < BB-Martino> then you do openchannel (and give it an amount, too) 06:28 < k1234> ok. 06:28 < Veggen> At this time, I recommed *noone* to run mainnet nodes until they have tried a bit on testnet. 06:28 < Veggen> but my offer still stands if you want it :) 06:28 < BB-Martino> i wish there was mass acceptance already. anyone using BB's wallet can instantly pay LN invoices from their virtual balance, in a heartbeat (it's been in place for a month now) 06:29 < k1234> ok ;) 06:29 < k1234> i don't mind experimenting with a few $$$: https://blockchain.info/tx/94b2f8436aeba479072eb160b269d488550764df14672cf9d769884cfe08313b 06:31 < k1234> Veggen: if you want: 14XD6SN6JQDQZFwn5pXGk6ukMeBZYFtGP7 06:31 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 06:33 < Veggen> tsk..not to segwit address? 06:34 < k1234> i know... my mobile wallet (Mycelium) doesn't support it yet! 06:34 < k1234> hold on... I'll get a *proper* address ;) 06:34 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 06:34 < Veggen> you can do a lncli newaddress p2wkh and I can send it to your LND. 06:35 < k1234> yes. just did that: 3GFWLkpE99uXoJNWg7mZgPvbXqYG2detix 06:37 < Veggen> hmm. no push amount? so no refund :) 06:37 < Veggen> oh well, no harm done. you can still use the channel. 06:37 < k1234> so... hmm... well, I did lncli openchannel 10000 06:38 < k1234> thought that specified push amount. how do I specify push? 06:38 < Veggen> yah, to push you need to add a second number. Which is a payment to me. 06:38 -!- JackH [~laptop@host-80-47-80-55.as13285.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:38 < k1234> got it. my wallet balance is 0 right now... waiting for new confirmations. 06:39 < k1234> i will push you 10000 sat as soon as I'm able. shouldn't be too long! 06:40 < Veggen> Hmm. Do you have channels with balance remote? 06:41 < k1234> I don't understand the question. 06:41 < Veggen> ...which is one of the reasons I recommended playing on testnet. So that you understand the tech before you waste money. 06:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> 336k blocks synced on mainnet... this is gonna take a while, isn't it :P 06:42 < k1234> ha! yes. care to elaborate on what I've missed? 06:43 * NoImNotNineVolt is playing with lnd and btcd for the first time 06:49 < Veggen> k1234: a lot? 06:50 < Veggen> this isn't that userrfriendly yet. Playing with LND, one *is* expected to do some research. 06:51 < Veggen> I don't mind to answer a question or two, but you'll find *noone* who is willing to tutor someone that is not willing to put in some effort to learn the technology themselves first. 06:51 < k1234> ha. yes. I put $20.00 into my lnd address. I'm ok messing around with that. Learning as I go. 06:51 < k1234> And: I AM trying to learn the tech! That's why I'm here! 06:52 < Veggen> http://dev.lightning.community/ 06:52 < k1234> My assumption was that autopilot would get me up and running enough to be able to expirament. Apparently that was incorrect. 06:52 < Veggen> start there. 06:53 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-37-38-86-200.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd 06:56 < k1234> cheers! 06:56 < k1234> I'll be back once I have a better sense of what's going on! 06:57 < Veggen> yah, plkease do. 06:58 < Veggen> I don't mind heloing someone, but I do expect them to do some research., So read a bit of that :) 06:58 < Veggen> eh, helping someone. 07:04 -!- quitobro [quitobro@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/quitobro] has joined #lnd 07:07 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pvcogfzovwzdbrbq] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 07:08 -!- dbolser [~dbolser@unaffiliated/faceface] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:09 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:09 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #lnd 07:13 -!- wxss [~user@192-30-89-138.baremetal.cloudsingularity.net] has joined #lnd 07:19 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> BB-Martino: Oh, that's really cool. I've not bought any BTC recently, but I might have to pick up £5-£10 worth to try out your Lightning implementation! Do you charge a fee (past the LN fee) for withdrawals via LN? 07:19 -!- nirved [~nirved@2a02:8071:b58a:3c00:5c93:ec78:14ff:558c] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 07:22 < Veggen> BB-Martino: link? 07:22 < Veggen> ah, bitbargain? 07:24 < Veggen> yah, I created a channel there. Funded in my end only, so I need someone to pay you over it so you can use it to pay someone else :) 07:28 -!- creslin [~textual@deposing-waterfront.volia.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 07:29 -!- nirved [~nirved@2a02:8071:b58a:3c00:2072:11ba:3449:fbf4] has joined #lnd 07:31 -!- mr-salad-fingers [a2d20242@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.210.2.66] has joined #lnd 07:32 < mr-salad-fingers> From my understanding LN works by enforcement through timelocks. How is it that this is possible if timelocks are only enforced onchain? How does LN settle HTLC without broadcasting to the blockchain? 07:33 < BB-Martino> Veggen: sure, just pm me an invoice 07:33 < BB-Martino> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: no, no fees. 07:34 < zyp> mr-salad-fingers, they are broadcasted onchain when they need to be enforced, until they need to be enforced they are not broadcasted 07:35 < mr-salad-fingers> doesn't every HTLC need enforced? 07:36 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> BB-Martino: Gave it a shot, but same issuew ith Veggen of needing a reverse path. Is there anyway to deposit BTC via Lightning to BitBargain? Least that way I could start creating my deficits of channel values towards me for BitBargain to pay me. 07:36 < zyp> mr-salad-fingers, to put it another way, as long as everybody are behaving, you don't need to go onchain 07:36 < zyp> if there is a dispute, you go onchain to settle the dispute 07:37 < mr-salad-fingers> where can I read how HTCL is handled on LN? Doesn't HTLC expire after so many blocks? 07:40 < zyp> a CSV timelock is relative, i.e. the deadline is counting from the block it was mined in after being published 07:40 < BB-Martino> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: we're waiting for a bit more maturity before accepting LN. One bad move, misimplementation by either side and it could end up with our hot wallets drained. But we'll get there. Before that I'll try to get some other wallet providers to have a channel with me to allow for instant transfers between the wallets (relying on LN in the background). 07:41 < mr-salad-fingers> Have you guys read the whitepaper on "channel factories"? Seems a much better implementation than punishment based enforcement like what LN currently uses 07:42 < zyp> I haven't, but I believe channel factories are completely orthogonal to punishment/enforcement 07:42 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> BB-Martino: Maybe add it but cap it at £10/day or week, just for testing purposes? Looking at your ID for lightning (Me being #37) you don't seem to get many users. £10/week/user with £100/week total probably would work for testing. 07:43 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> Then grow it over time, as LN matures 07:43 < mr-salad-fingers> Well, it mentions the idea of transaction trees in lieu of punishment based enforcement 07:43 < mr-salad-fingers> punishment based enforcement = assymetric revocable transactions, right? 07:45 < mr-salad-fingers> im going off memory though, so I might be inaccurate on some statements, it was a while back since I've read that paper. But tx trees look like much better system 07:48 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:54 < BB-Martino> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: not sure what users you are referring to. We have 160k and 3k are actively using the site every day. As for LN, there has been *one* single actual real-life use, someone bought from the blockstream store. The rest were yalls.org article reads. We do have a limit, about 100 quid worth of BTC IIRC. Plenty enough for testing and small orders. 07:58 -!- galileopy [~galileopy@unaffiliated/galileopy] has joined #lnd 07:59 -!- BlackSheep2 [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has joined #lnd 08:00 -!- BlackSheep2 [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has quit [Client Quit] 08:00 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has joined #lnd 08:01 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> BB-Martino: I meant lightning users, I saw the transaction ID for "#37" when I tried to withdraw, I assumed that meant there had only been 37 withdrawal attempts via LN. 08:02 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> BB-Martino: Didn't mean to insult you, I know your site is indeed very popular :) 08:04 -!- friyin [~FreeMind@static-170-132-228-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #lnd 08:05 < mr-salad-fingers> where an i find how HTLC works on LN? I've tried reading section on LN from "Mastering Bitcoin, 2nd edition" but for me it is not detailed/technical enough 08:05 < mr-salad-fingers> and the way it is explained in that book does not seem like it would work on LN 08:05 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mr-salad-fingers: I mean, the most technical place you'll get is the source code. Otherwise, maybe(?) the BOLTs. I haven't personally read the HTLC documents though. 08:05 < mr-salad-fingers> would I want to read up on BOLT? 08:06 < mr-salad-fingers> where do i find the BOLT papers? 08:06 < mr-salad-fingers> and i'm not a programmer, so I cannot udnerstand source code 08:06 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mr-salad-fingers: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc 08:06 < grzs> BOLT: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/00-introduction.md 08:07 < mr-salad-fingers> thanks 08:08 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 08:08 < mr-salad-fingers> one more question for now, is it true that one has to send before they can receive? I thought that if a chan was opened up when opening a LN chan they can recieve up to the capactity of the chan they have open 08:08 < NoImNotNineVolt> so i think i'm running lnd on testnet successfully... that was easy... 08:08 < mr-salad-fingers> and isnt capacity if alic and bob open chan alice puts in 1 BTC and bo puts in 2 btc the capacity would be 3 btc meaning that alic can get up to 3 BTC right? 08:10 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mr-salad-fingers: They can receive up to however much the channel "owes" them. If you opened the channel, then the other party probably hasn't put any money in, so you wouldn't be able to receive anything. However, if the other party agrees to put some BTC in the channel with you (say, you both put in 10k sat) then you'd be able to both send and receive (up to 10k sat). 08:10 < grzs> I think it works like a balance scale 08:10 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mr-salad-fingers: And no, in that example, alice would only be able to get 2BTC, because Bob only has 2BTC in the channel that he can "reassign" to Alice 08:11 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mr-salad-fingers: Though, and my understanding is quite lacking, with Lightning AMP transactions, you'll be able to merge multiple channels into one big transaction to hopefully mitigate this issue somewhat, but you'd still need to have money in channels that is "under the control of" the opposite party. 08:12 < hkjn0> mr-salad-fingers: currently, channels are funded 100% by the party initiating them, see https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/bolt5-htlc-timeout/02-peer-protocol.md#the-open_channel-message 08:19 < NoImNotNineVolt> can i run one lnd on testnet and one on mainnet on the same box without doing anything special? 08:19 < NoImNotNineVolt> i.e. does lnd use distinct ports for mainnet vs testnet the way btcd does? 08:19 <@mlz> sure, i put them in separate users 08:20 < NoImNotNineVolt> why? 08:21 <@mlz> i like to separate stuff 08:21 < NoImNotNineVolt> fair point. 08:21 -!- friyin [~FreeMind@static-170-132-228-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.9.3 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/] 08:21 < NoImNotNineVolt> i mean, i'd just run on separate boxes at that point. 08:21 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Or docker ;) 08:21 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: But I believe all ports are configurable so, shouldn't really be that bad. 08:21 < NoImNotNineVolt> i hate docker. it creates maintenance nightmares. 08:21 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 08:22 < NoImNotNineVolt> indeed, ports being configurable would fall into the "doing anything special" category mentioned above :P 08:22 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Really? What maintenance nightmares do you have? 08:23 < NoImNotNineVolt> so, i've been given a vm image with a docker container in it as "an appliance" that i did some integration against, etc. 08:23 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: I find it completely solves maintenance nightmares, like for example your exact problem. Two docker volumes, two docker networks, all configured via docker-compose in like 6 lines, then just exposing two different ports and no issue whatsoever. 08:23 < NoImNotNineVolt> but without regular updates from the vendor, i have to maintain the os and os-provided packages, then i have to _additionally_ update/rebuild the docker container on top of that... 08:24 < NoImNotNineVolt> like, wtf, why 08:24 < NoImNotNineVolt> yo dawg, i heard you like separation. 08:24 < NoImNotNineVolt> docker in chroot in a vm in a... 08:24 < NoImNotNineVolt> it's madness i tell you. 08:24 < NoImNotNineVolt> but sorry, this is offtopic :P 08:24 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Because Docker keeps everything contained, so that you don't need to deal with the libraries on the host machine being correct/whatnot. It's literally the main key point of docker, as long as docker works, whatever is in the container is 100% going to work no matter what configuration you have on the physical host. 08:25 < NoImNotNineVolt> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: another way of saying that is "docker prevents your os package manager from being able to update the very things you need updated". 08:25 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has joined #lnd 08:25 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: ;) 08:26 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: But in all seriousness, normally you build everything in your organisation/whatnot on a base image that you keep updated then have cascading builds, so if you update a package in the base image, then suddenly all your applications are rebuilt against that one image. 08:26 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has left #lnd [] 08:26 < NoImNotNineVolt> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: i understand. and then you distribute updates to your customers regularly. 08:27 < NoImNotNineVolt> but that never happens. 08:27 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has joined #lnd 08:27 -!- mr-salad-fingers [a2d20242@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.210.2.66] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 08:27 < NoImNotNineVolt> in reality, updates are not timely (if they happen at all), and your customers have to maintain your appliance themselves. 08:27 < NoImNotNineVolt> and your dockerization makes their lives a nightmare. 08:28 < NoImNotNineVolt> and furthermore, in practice, your customers are understaffed, so your appliance goes without updates entirely. 08:29 < zyp> now you're talking about appliances and updates, not docker in general, and I don't really feel like docker makes a big difference on the quality of vendor updates to an appliance 08:29 < zyp> either way, the appliance would go without updates if nobody actually maintains it 08:30 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> Yeah, got to agree with zyp. For example, in my homelab I have everything dockerised, and I get updates very rapidly. 08:31 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> But the containers I use aren't made by the manufacturers of the software, but community members. Yeah, I'm trusting them to not package malware, but I gotta say, `docker-compose pull --parallel && docker-compose up -d` is so nice. 08:32 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> In environments where "community members" isn't acceptable (I.E. some stuff I run for a company on AWS), I make the dockerfiles myself. 08:33 < zyp> I think end of the line, it doesn't matter whether you use docker, VMs or bare metal servers for isolation, in either case you end up with multiple environments to maintain updates for 08:34 < zyp> and in either case, you can automate that through tools like ansible 08:35 < zyp> I use ansible to manage my docker containers, lets me just change a line in the playbook and rerun it when I need to update anything 08:35 < zyp> but it might as well have been VMs or bare metal 08:37 < NoImNotNineVolt> where docker does its separation adds considerable difficulty for end users to do their own updates, that's all i'm saying. 08:37 < zyp> how so? 08:37 < raucao> Veggen: ah, thanks! found them in .lnd/ and now it works 08:38 < NoImNotNineVolt> if you get given a vm by a vendor, and there's no updates, it's not rocket science to ssh in, install unatttended-upgrades or something, and settle for that at least. 08:38 < NoImNotNineVolt> if you're given a docker container, then glwt. 08:38 < Veggen> raucao: no problem. 08:39 < zyp> well, technically if you're given a docker image based on a full distro like ubuntu or whatever, there's no problem spinning up a shell in it and running apt-get upgrade 08:39 < zyp> but on the other hand, when are you really given prebuilt docker images without the dockerfile to build it yourself? 08:39 < NoImNotNineVolt> zyp: exactly. yet _another_ place to worry about updates. 08:39 < NoImNotNineVolt> zyp: often. all the time. 08:40 < zyp> I don't share that impression 08:40 < NoImNotNineVolt> outside of f/loss, that's been my impression. 08:40 <@mlz> what's ansible? 08:40 < NoImNotNineVolt> ansible is great. 08:41 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: I don't see how you can claim a docker image is "one extra place to deal with" but a vm you can "just ssh in and update" 08:41 < NoImNotNineVolt> it's an agentless alternative to zookeeper, etc. 08:41 < NoImNotNineVolt> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: in my case, it's a docker image in a vm. an extra layer of separation, an extra layer of updates, for no apparent reason. 08:41 < zyp> that's on you then :) 08:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> i'm fine with docker _instead of_ virtualization. because that's basically the same thing. 08:42 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Who is your vendor? 08:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: a big4. 08:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> it's internal. 08:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> they're totally incompetent, imho :P 08:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> but this isn't the only time i've seen something like this. 08:43 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> when i was dod, i never once saw a sane usage of docker. 08:43 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has joined #lnd 08:43 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: I only use Docker on virtualisation when I'm using something like AWS or digital ocean (so physical -> VM where I get root -> docker), and even then it's all automated so why would I even deal with updates? Update the docker file, push it to docker hub/whatever, all the machines auto-update and done. 08:44 < NoImNotNineVolt> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: if you're the vendor, then yes, you have that level of control. when you're not, you don't. 08:45 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: No idea how large your corp is, but since you said it was internal I'd go speak to the packagers. 08:45 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.26.145] has joined #lnd 08:46 < zyp> so your issue is actually with the number of layers, not the docker layer in particular 08:46 < NoImNotNineVolt> mostly that i've only seen the docker layer used in superfluous fashion which actually ends up adding to maintenance burden without really providing any value. 08:47 < NoImNotNineVolt> so yes. 08:47 < zyp> blame the use, not the tool 08:47 < zyp> the whole reason I like docker is because I don't have to build and maintain VMs anymore 08:48 < NoImNotNineVolt> i sunk so much work into my vm rig though :P 08:49 < NoImNotNineVolt> ubuntu running lnd on half my screen, win10 gaming on the other half... docker won't do that :P 08:50 < NoImNotNineVolt> that's neither here nor there. so i've got lnd running, and i was wondering, if i wanted to run some analytics on the network topology... 08:50 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:51 < NoImNotNineVolt> lncli describegraph seems like a good place to start... 08:51 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Well, no, docker won't. Each has it's use case, and hardware passthrough and running entire other operating systems is not docker's, as it shared a kernel with the host OS. 08:51 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: I really don't feel like that's a fair comparison. 08:51 < NoImNotNineVolt> it's not. but i'm just trying to change subjects :P 08:52 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: However, having a unique environment for user's to upload dedicated content to before you process them (such as C14's use of Docker, I believe I read somewhere) is a very good use case. 08:52 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Fair enough 08:55 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has joined #lnd 08:58 < raucao> now i get some super-weird behavior: after successfully unlocking the wallet, lnd stops listening on both rpc and grpc ports o_O 08:58 < raucao> no log output, on most verbose level 08:59 < raucao> says it opened wallet and initialized fee estimator, and disappear from netstat checking for LISTEN 08:59 < raucao> and rpc commands obviousl resulting in "[lncli] rpc error: code = Unavailable desc = grpc: the connection is unavailable" then 09:02 < NoImNotNineVolt> why do nodes have color? 09:02 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.26.145] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 09:05 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: For maps/graphs/whatnot 09:05 < NoImNotNineVolt> so it's decorative only? 09:05 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: It's just to make it look pretty I believe. You can choose whatever you like :) 09:05 * NoImNotNineVolt questions the nerdiness of this protocol 09:05 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: https://lnmainnet.gaben.win/ <- See those colors? 99% sure that's what it's for 09:06 * NoImNotNineVolt imagines if bgp links had color 09:06 < NoImNotNineVolt> my inner ee cringes at the thought :P 09:06 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: BUT IT LOOKS SO PRETTYYY! 09:06 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has joined #lnd 09:07 < NoImNotNineVolt> 20 years from now, as LN struggles to meet crushing demands, angry nerds look at each other wondering why so much capacity is being wasted on color 09:07 * NoImNotNineVolt is guilty of premature optimization 09:08 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> NoImNotNineVolt: Then they turn back to their holograms using 5Pbit/s and laugh about the joke they just made. Because, as they all knew, colours are pretty AF and totally worth the excess bandwidth. 09:17 -!- wxss [~user@192-30-89-138.baremetal.cloudsingularity.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 09:19 -!- wxss [~user@209.58.165.1] has joined #lnd 09:19 -!- deepcore [~deepcore@62-210-36-142.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.4] 09:21 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:22 -!- josh [49634fce@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.99.79.206] has joined #lnd 09:22 -!- josh is now known as Guest28188 09:23 < lndbot1> Not sure how useful this analogy is, but the way I visualize individual channels is like a zipline between two buildings. The channel capacity is the thickness of the zipline cable and on each end, the cable is tied to weights that are weighed in satoshis. So if you want to send a payment across the zipline, you need to have enough weight on your end to make sure it doesn't get detached. Same for the reverse. Shooting a zipline across (opening a c 09:23 < lndbot1> done by either side though. And forwarding payments is essentially sending your weight across the channel and the other side sending it back with fees (but atomically, so it either works completely or your weight never leaves your side, something that can't happen IRL) 09:25 -!- fusion44 [~fusion44@p2E59F969.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #lnd 09:25 -!- drrty2 [drrty@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/drrty] has joined #lnd 09:31 < NoImNotNineVolt> so are there any existing integrations available between lnd and some graphdb? 09:31 < NoImNotNineVolt> or would there be any interest in something like that? 09:32 < NoImNotNineVolt> seems like most of the ecosystem revolves around visualization rather than queryability :P 09:33 -!- Bitcoin_acolyte [ae417c7a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.174.65.124.122] has joined #lnd 09:34 < Bitcoin_acolyte> Hey anyone here available to help out a low priority noob make his first lightning payment? 09:34 < NoImNotNineVolt> also, and i suppose i'll need to parse the log to get incremental network updates? 09:34 < NoImNotNineVolt> bootstrap with describegraph, then parse log for incrementals... 09:35 < NoImNotNineVolt> Bitcoin_acolyte: you're still ahead of me :P 09:35 < Bitcoin_acolyte> :) I have my channel open but i'm getting. "payment_error": "FeeInsufficient(fee=58102859 mSAT 09:35 < Bitcoin_acolyte> no idea how to pay a higher fee 09:35 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 09:36 < NoImNotNineVolt> i have no idea how that works on lightning. on the main chain you'd need a cpfp tx. 09:36 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@104.137.194.255] has joined #lnd 09:37 < Bitcoin_acolyte> yeah this wont be an on chain payment so i dont think that's what i need at the moment. 09:38 < NoImNotNineVolt> i believe i read 0.4-beta revamped the fee calculation stuff, it's supposedly dynamic now, if that's relevant. 09:38 -!- Guest28188 [49634fce@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.99.79.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 09:40 < Bitcoin_acolyte> It might be. :) I'm reading through all the docs I can find. ill keep an eye out for any recent changes. 09:40 < Bitcoin_acolyte> Is there anyone in here that knows lnd better than me and @NoImNotNineVolt? 09:41 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> So, question, the log data when creating an onchain transaction (Signature script, witness, sequence, txout, etc...), I don't suppose any of that can be used to manually reimport the channel into LND? LND didn't seem to save the channel data (it sent the money on chain, but no channel has been created under 'listchannels') 09:43 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> I ctrl+c'd lnd (and it did a graceful shutdown) ~6 seconds after the transaction was broadcast, so, potentially my fault for the issue (though if it does lose data -- that is a bug), just wondering. 09:43 < lndbot1> Bitcoin_acolyte: I can try to help. what channels do you have open, what are their balances and what's the amount of the invoice you're trying to pay?> 09:45 < lndbot1> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A: LND uses deterministic seeds for everything so in theory, even if you start with a fresh copy of LND, if you re-import a previous seed it should be able to scan the blockchain from the beginning of time and re-establish previously opened channels 09:45 <@mlz> NoImNotNineVolt, check this out: https://www.robtex.com/lightning/path/031b6ba6271514bd30202ba007a1d2ef2e2106aaa5774183c570137251687407dc/0389a83575fd191f2d76f24da0730900cf726d6d159ef4366a796558a33646c949 09:46 < lndbot1> I would give it some time and see what happens, and if you're on the latest (and testnet) you can try starting from scratch 09:46 < lndbot1> if you do, do me a favor and let me know how that goes because it's a very new (and awesome) feature 09:47 <@mlz> tyzbit currently we don't have rescan yet so the seed can't recover the old wallet and channels yet 09:47 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> lndbot1: Is it possible to output the seed from the wallet? LND generated a wallet for me on launch (Maybe bad, but I ran with `--noencryptwallet` since I'm constantly restarting lnd and I don't mind *that* much about the funds, so I think it autogenerated a wallet) 09:47 <@mlz> you don't have pw so there's no seed 09:47 < lndbot1> ah, that's good to know, thanks 09:48 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> Okay, unrelated, good news, the channel just randomly appeared. Not sure why it took so long, but heyho. Other than than, mlz, can you explain what you mean? I thought the password was for encrypting the wallet, which was deterministically generated from the seed? 09:48 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> Or am I wrong. 09:49 <@mlz> when you create a pw, it creates a seed for you, but the seed currently doesn't recover the old wallet yet 09:50 <@mlz> from roasbeef: "Full look-ahead rescans aren't implemented yet (high prio item), but you can force a full manual rescan with an external tool. We'll be publishing more details on our strategy for static+dynamic back ups, as well as on-chain and off-chain fund recovery." 09:51 <@mlz> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/84n7dl/announcing_lnd_04beta/dvrm0ts/ 09:52 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> mlz: Can you explain further what you mean by "it creates a seed for you, but the seed currently doesn't recover the old wallet yet"? Do you mean that recovery code hasn't been implemented? Or that the seed and wallet aren't linked? 09:57 < NoImNotNineVolt> Bitcoin_acolyte: i don't know anything about lnd, for the record :P 09:59 < NoImNotNineVolt> mlz: not github link? :P 10:05 -!- usil [~foo@odisej.fmf.uni-lj.si] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 10:06 -!- usil [~foo@odisej.fmf.uni-lj.si] has joined #lnd 10:07 -!- Bitcoin_acolyte [ae417c7a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.174.65.124.122] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 10:07 <@mlz> PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A, it means just that, if you create a new .lnd directory and put in the seed, it only brings up the same node pubkey but not the wallet balance or channels you had from the old .lnd database 10:07 < k1234> @Veegan: you there? 10:08 < k1234> *veggen: you there? 10:10 < k1234> Anybody: I understand what a push payment DOES when initiating a channel. I don't understand WHY this is necessary. Is it a way of making channels more durable? (IE: incentivizing nodes to keep channels alive?) 10:11 <@mlz> NoImNotNineVolt, https://lndexplorer.com/ 10:13 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has joined #lnd 10:22 < lndbot1> k1234: having balanced channels lets the channel be more useful bi-directionally. If you open a channel with the balance all on one side, the other side doesn't have any funds to stake in routing payments towards you, and you can only route so many payments before you "fill up" your side to the channel capacity. 10:23 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: But correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically giving them free money. It's not like it's a request "Hey, would you mind adding ${X} of your money", it's literally "I put in 10k sat, 5k for me and 5k for you"? 10:23 < lndbot1> that's why opening channels with push amounts is desirable from a network design perspective. There are a few ways to accomplish balanced channels as well. 10:23 < lndbot1> Well, it's not natively supported anywhere but a business accepting bitcoin payments could easily just accept a channel opening with a push amount as payment. 10:24 < k1234> is there any way to rebalance a channel once it is created? Or, must I close the channel and re-open it? 10:25 < lndbot1> k1234: yes, if you send payments out one of your channels back to yourself through another channel, you can lower the balance of one while increasing the balance of the other. I don't think you can do this yet, but it will be possible. 10:25 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: But how would that know that your `pushamt` was from your invoice? I think it'd probably be much easier to just make a larger, one-sided channel then immediately pay an invoice with no intermediary nodes, that way you are actually paying your invoice. 10:25 < k1234> IE: this protocol conversation: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2017-May/000692.html 10:26 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: Imagine someone the size of Amazon, for example. How would they know who just deposited ${X} via a `pushamt`, when 10,000 users have invoices for 10k sat? 10:26 < lndbot1> yes, that's another way to do it as well. As a business I would prefer a channel opening with a push amount, though, because the blockchain will already reflect the right balances whereas opening a channel and then making a payment _does_ introduce a small counterparty risk 10:26 < k1234> got it. thx. 10:26 < lndbot1> it is not something that is readily available but it is something everyone is working towards. 10:28 < lndbot1> one instant easy solution I have is for the customer to provide a txid of the channel opening (and perhaps the pubkey of the node if Amazon has more than one) 10:28 < lndbot1> then Amazon can just see the txid is confirmed, confirm the amts and then confirm on the node that the relevant channel has a local balance (from their perspective) 10:29 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: What stops me, an attacker, from just spamming Amazon with every TXID that goes onto the blockchain? 10:29 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> "Hi, TXID^(1) was me." 10:29 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> "Hi, TXID^(2) was me." 10:29 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> "Hi, TXID^(3) was me." 10:29 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> so on and so forth. 10:29 < lndbot1> channels are multi-sig transactions on the blockchain and in order to open a channel, Amazon's node has to sign the channel opening 10:30 < lndbot1> so Amazon will take the TXID, ensure that it's the right kind of transaction and then also check their node you opened the channel with and confirm that it successfully negotiated the channel opening 10:31 < lndbot1> so you can't take any given TXID and say "yep that was me" because Amazon knows verifiably which txids it has a multisig key to and which ones it doesn't 10:31 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has joined #lnd 10:31 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit, I understand that, but your example is that I make a channel with Amazon with a pushamt of however much I owe them, then copy the TXID and give it to them to "prove" it was me who opened the channel. That simply doesn't sound secure to me. Amazon would know the channel was opened with them, but it's a timing attack and I could quickly jump in and say "THAT WAS ME!" before the legitimate user was able to claim their TXID. 10:32 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> If that makes sense, so, imagine two users are buying from Amazon, one legitimate one an attacker. Both are buying a very popular product, let's say for 0.01BTC. The legitimate user opens a channel and pushes 0.01BTC, the attacker sees the 0.01BTC channel on the blockchain and quickly announces to Amazon that it was in fact theirs (I.E. The attacker's). Amazon believes them, because it is indeed an open channel with Amazon, and it 10:37 < lndbot1> I said it was instant and easy, I didn't say that was the best solution. 10:38 < lndbot1> it's not a difficult problem though, just requires a little thoughtfulness into the design 10:39 < lndbot1> for example, you could easily prove the customer is who they say they are by asking them to sign a message you generate with their key but that's not exactly user-friendly. 10:39 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: I'm not going to lie, I don't see the issue with simply opening a large direct channel, then paying through said channel. 10:39 < lndbot1> there's no issue, it's just different levels of counterparty risk 10:40 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: Explain? + afk 5-10 minutes. 10:44 < lndbot1> so ex: I open a 10BTC channel to Lamborghini with no push amt. Lamborghini says cool, pay this invoice for your car, and I pay 10BTC for it. I have a HUGE incentive to try to cheat Lamborghini since on-chain, I still have control of those 10BTC, so if I just force close that earlier state and if Lamborghini doesn't catch it, I get away with 10BTC and their car. However, if instead they say "Open a channel of any size >10BTC with 10BTC on our end", 10:44 < lndbot1> there is no previous channel state where I still have that 10BTC. I can close the channel, but all that will do is send their BTC to them and whatever is left over to me. 10:44 < NoImNotNineVolt> mlz: lndexplorer is pretty, but it doesn't expose an interface to query the graph. 10:45 < NoImNotNineVolt> i'm not going to sit here and manually traverse edges :P 10:45 < lndbot1> that kind of channel-as-payment is valuable to me as a customer though, since if I leave the channel open after I pay and someone goes to make their monthly Lambo payment afterwards, if they route through me I get to collect some small fees. Plus this random person then doesn't need a direct channel with the dealership, they can just use an unrelated channel they have open with someone else. 10:45 <@mlz> NoImNotNineVolt, oh it's up to you, we have plenty of visualizers, you asked for this so i just wanted to show you the links 10:46 < NoImNotNineVolt> mlz: perhaps i misspoke. i was more commenting on how there are many visualizers, but seemingly no integrations with graph databases that would allow for running queries against the underlying graph. 10:47 < NoImNotNineVolt> and as a corrolary, if there are indeed no such integrations available, would there be interest for one in the community? 10:48 < NoImNotNineVolt> say, lnd->arangodb or something? 10:50 < lndbot1> `lnd` queries and works with the graph in its normal operation but that definitely would be useful. Rompert's tool to route multiple paths through the graph is definitely useful and having that power in users' hands would be awesome 10:51 < NoImNotNineVolt> if lnd exposed an interface that supported queries of arbitrary complexity, that would be awesome. but in lieu of that, an integration with a graphdb would be an acceptable workaround. 10:52 -!- rls [~rls@74.120.222.234] has joined #lnd 10:54 -!- psyopp [~rls@74.120.222.234] has joined #lnd 10:55 < NoImNotNineVolt> on the other hand, arango seems overkill. it's not like ln is that big. 10:55 -!- someone235 [~someone23@unaffiliated/someone235] has joined #lnd 10:57 -!- rls [~rls@74.120.222.234] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 10:57 < someone235> Hi, someone knows what's an elkrem tree? It's mentioned sometimes in the mailing list, and I don't know what it is 10:58 < someone235> sorry if one of you already answered me earlier. I used an AndroidIRC client which works pretty bad and has a lot of DCs 10:58 <@mlz> someone235, what is it ? and which mailing list? 10:59 < someone235> mlz, here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-August/000565.html 10:59 < someone235> mlz, I don't know what is it, this is why I ask :) 11:01 <@mlz> someone235, it seems something for lit? that's another implementation and they have channel #lit 11:02 <@mlz> someone235, oh nvm, wait for roasbeef to help you out 11:02 -!- cluelessperson_ is now known as cluelessperson 11:07 < rompert> elkrem tree is probably just a typo of merkle tree 11:07 < someone235> rompert, lol, it's exactly the opposite. I didn't notice :) 11:07 < rompert> oh... that's a lot of same typos in one mail :) i'll take that back 11:08 < rompert> well probably an upside down merkle tree 11:08 < rompert> or mirrored 11:08 < someone235> I guess it's by purpose. But I still don't have an idea what it means :) 11:09 -!- qxt [~qxt@unaffiliated/qxt] has joined #lnd 11:10 < rompert> merkle tree with a twist of some sort. or just a typo that caught on. google didn't help much. i did find a "merkle elkrem" on facebook though 11:11 -!- spoonthrow [a2d20242@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.210.2.66] has joined #lnd 11:11 < rompert> "elkrem is a simpler alternative to the 64 dimensional sha-chain. it's basically a reverse merkle tree" 11:11 -!- Pioklo__ [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has joined #lnd 11:11 < qxt> noticed that since beta that chainparams.go seems to define mainnet so I guess I don't have to define it myself. 11:11 < spoonthrow> Does lnd work with i2p or .onion addresses like bitcoin nodes? Really really horrible for security and anonimity to use clearnet addresses 11:12 < qxt> Just var activeNetParams = bitcoinMainNetParams and thats it? 11:12 < spoonthrow> simply running a ln router might make one a target since they hold balance, does lnd support now or in future secure networks such as Tor or i2p? 11:13 < rompert> someone235: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43gyt0/serious_is_it_possible_that_nodes_could_be/ look for definition there 11:13 < spoonthrow> to protect from mitm attacks? 11:14 < rompert> spoonthrow: one of the latest breaking changes to lnd was related to address types such as tor. not sure if it is fully implemented yet though 11:14 <@mlz> qxt, bitcoin.mainnet=1 in lnd.conf 11:14 < qxt> spoonthrow, just because this is source based routed onion does not make it tor or i2p. idea is just to make it harder to know who is talking to who in the network. hop nodes don't need to know where you are going. 11:14 < spoonthrow> gxt I am not talking about that 11:15 < qxt> mlz, whoa cool so no more dicking around before compiling 11:15 < spoonthrow> I mean, using lnd without advertising or requiring my public ip address 11:15 < spoonthrow> I do not want my internet connection associated with bitcoin at all 11:15 < lndbot1> spoonthrow: lnd is tor compatible now 11:15 <@mlz> qxt, feels weird doesn't it? :D 11:15 < spoonthrow> so I can have a .onion address for my lnd? 11:15 < qxt> yeah really nice 11:15 < spoonthrow> wow nice 11:15 < lndbot1> yes, and you won't even be the first 11:15 < lndbot1> even on mainnet 11:15 < qxt> spoonthrow, just do something with torsocks if it makes you feel better 11:16 <@mlz> the first day of this beat release i was LOST, it felt so weird not to have to change a few lines chainparams.go and config.go! :D 11:16 <@mlz> oops s/beat/beta/ 11:16 < spoonthrow> I want to not just make outbound connects through tor, but also incoming i.e. .onion 11:16 < rompert> be craeful when you type, mlz 11:16 < qxt> mlz, I am updating my node to beta and it feels so ... blinky now 11:16 < spoonthrow> not sure if torsocks would be suitable for that 11:16 <@mlz> rompert, hahaha :D 11:17 < qxt> spoonthrow, so what is the issue. onion routing is not tor 11:18 <@mlz> qxt, :D 11:18 < qxt> spoonthrow, it is a way of using layers that can be de-encrypted by each node to know nothing but what it need to know to send to the next node 11:18 < lndbot1> yep. you need to do the configuration yourself but you can run a Lightning node on Tor both without advertising your node (send-only, basically) or by advertising your onion address and other nodes on Tor can connect to you and send/route payments 11:18 < stiell> Outbound via Tor works fine. Not sure if it's possible to advertise .onion address. 11:18 < lndbot1> Eventually I plan to either run Tor-only or be a hybrid node to patch Tor and clearnet 11:18 < spoonthrow> yeah, no point on running an ln node if cannot accept incoming connections. 11:19 < spoonthrow> Does lnd support .onion addresses? 11:19 < spoonthrow> If anything, I can just manually have the tor daemon bind to the local lnd port 11:19 < lndbot1> I don't know how it would work for a node running on clearnet, but yes, definitely, at least Tor <-> Tor nodes 11:20 < lndbot1> IMO, the final release of Lightning should run on Tor only anyway, like Bisq 11:20 < spoonthrow> im completely okay with boycotting clearnet nodes, 11:21 < spoonthrow> bitcoin nodes run on .onion, but I2P .b32.i2p would be great perhaps better also 11:21 < spoonthrow> for both lnd and bitcoin nodes 11:21 < lndbot1> you don't even have to boycot clearnet nodes, so long as a Tor node can route a payment to a non-tor node, you can use them to make clearnet payments I think 11:22 < spoonthrow> true, so tor node could receive from only tor, but can send to any right? 11:23 < qxt> spoonthrow, what is the reason for using tor? So your ISP can't see what you are doing? Your lnd traffic is already encrypted. Only your client knows the path to where it is going. 11:23 < spoonthrow> we need tor to clearnet gateways 11:24 < qxt> spoonthrow, but yes the protocol might be dug out with DPI. I would think transforms will be used to hide that later 11:24 < spoonthrow> couldnt anyone see my chan capacity or how much money storing 11:24 < spoonthrow> thus make it a targetted location? 11:25 < spoonthrow> oh, I see Bob's hosting a lnd router from his home, that has a 5 btc capacity loaded on it, lets break in and steal it! 11:25 < lndbot1> not necessarily. You can create private channels that don't get advertised. 11:25 < spoonthrow> not the point 11:25 < spoonthrow> it is really dangerous 11:25 < spoonthrow> LN routers will become targets, no point if cannot work with rest of the network 11:25 < lndbot1> it is a problem that everyone is working towards a solution to 11:26 < spoonthrow> i might just leach off my neighbors hacked wifi in meantime 11:26 < spoonthrow> ...or VPN perhaps? 11:26 < lndbot1> VPN is a great option 11:26 < lndbot1> VPN+Tor is even better 11:26 -!- thebotguy [05a904ae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.5.169.4.174] has joined #lnd 11:26 < spoonthrow> is there planned .onion support in future? 11:27 < qxt> I am calling Alex Jones! 11:27 < lndbot1> LND supports .onion addresses today. I don't know if it's only onion<->onion, though it may be 11:33 < spoonthrow> im curious to find out 11:33 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:33 < stiell> It doesn't seem to be able to advertise an address while using Tor, though: "loadConfig: Cannot set externalip flag with proxy flag - cannot listen for incoming connections via Tor's socks5 proxy" 11:33 < spoonthrow> worst case, could use special routers that act as gateways, sit between clearnet and Tor network 11:34 < spoonthrow> could be easy to setup with forwarding rules, probably with iptables 11:34 < NoImNotNineVolt> indeed, best to have a tor vlan. 11:34 < spoonthrow> tor is kind of centralized, all ran by single entity (tor project) 11:35 < someone235> rompert, thx 11:35 < spoonthrow> i2p might be really nice option also 11:35 < rompert> spoonthrow: as long as you have some channel to the general network, you can both send and receive (depending on your channel balance of course). if you do want to have inbound connections on clearnet you specify that address, and can point that to your tor gateway 11:35 < spoonthrow> just keep my lnd router on tor only 11:35 < rompert> and i have no idea how far the onion/tor support has progressed. why don't you have a go and let us know? 11:35 < spoonthrow> and have a anonymous vps, that forwards incoming clearnet connections to my self hosted server 11:35 < spoonthrow> right? 11:35 < NoImNotNineVolt> what's wrong with clearnet nodes? 11:36 < spoonthrow> lol 11:36 < spoonthrow> alot 11:36 < rompert> spoonthrow: well all you need is a tcp forwarder of some kind 11:36 < spoonthrow> vulnerable to MITM, balance correlated with location making a target to the operator, 11:36 < spoonthrow> hiding fact you are a LN operator 11:36 < NoImNotNineVolt> i'm currently running a node on testnet, but it's on direct clearnet. 11:37 < rompert> spoonthrow: you sound like someone i know. maybe you are. if so, nice to see you again :) 11:37 < NoImNotNineVolt> i could move it to a vpn vlan tor vlan easily, but i figured there was no need to compromise network performance. 11:37 < spoonthrow> I am one of many 11:37 < spoonthrow> and maybe you do know me, but we would never know 11:37 < rompert> spoonthrow: yeah. i've changed my nick too :) starts with the same two letters though 11:38 < spoonthrow> we all are the same, just cells that make up the global collective mind of technological progress 11:38 < rompert> anyhows. i've been thinking of trying running lnd on tor too, but haven't lifted a finger to do that so far. 11:38 < NoImNotNineVolt> it's not clear why you'd want to boycott them, though. do they hurt the network or something? 11:39 < NoImNotNineVolt> it seems that your objection is primarily around risk to the operators. 11:39 < spoonthrow> yeah, risk to operators 11:39 < NoImNotNineVolt> so you... boycott them? 11:39 < spoonthrow> and promoting continual use of clearnet 11:39 < spoonthrow> which is horrible security 11:39 < spoonthrow> we should use new networking technologies with public key hash based addressses 11:39 -!- thebotguy [05a904ae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.5.169.4.174] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:39 < spoonthrow> supporting clearnet is unethical IMHO 11:40 < NoImNotNineVolt> so you're saying i should be syncing the full mainnet blockchain over tor? :P 11:40 < spoonthrow> I do 11:40 < spoonthrow> lol 11:40 < spoonthrow> small blocks! 11:40 < NoImNotNineVolt> wouldn't that take... years? 11:40 -!- go1111111 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #lnd 11:40 < buZz> :) 11:40 < lndbot1> clearnet is not supported. As mentioned, all traffic is encrypted _and_ authenticated. There are definitely privacy issues, no doubt, but nothing is on "clearnet" 11:41 < lndbot1> for example, it is very difficult (and will get more difficult with better design and routing) to know who paid whom on LN 11:41 < qxt> spoonthrow, what happens if say you need to do 25 hops in the future to send a ln payment and everybody is using tor. Latency is not a issue? 11:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> also, as someone who appreciates tor's utility for more human purposes, i'd say anything that seeks to shift huge volumes of machine-to-machine traffic to tor is bad. 11:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> unless you're going to somehow link this with a huge expansion of tor infrastructure. 11:42 < qxt> using a onion method to route means the nodes on the path know nothing about who you are paying ect. 11:42 < rompert> spoonthrow's vision of the future is that the entire internet is running only tornodes, and everything else goes over that. it will be fun to see what happens with CDN and geo-limits of netflix and stuff :) 11:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> that doesn't scale well. 11:43 < rompert> no i'm not picking a fight, i kind of like that vision 11:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> that would only be viable in a future where people either value privacy much more than they currently do, or value bandwidth much less than they currently do. 11:43 < NoImNotNineVolt> or both. 11:44 < lndbot1> Your IP is in the clear, Tor is much preferrable 11:44 < rompert> the speed of light is a hard nut to crack though, so latency will be a bitch unless you make routing geographically limited. tor over quantum routers would be awesome! 11:44 < lndbot1> my vision of the internet of the future is traffic is mostly wireless and 100% encrypted and traffic is routed via your neighbors who are compensated somehow for helping to forward traffic 11:45 < qxt> rompert I love that vision too but tor is really outdated in how it does things. DPI is the enemy but there are ways to make it difficult for them. The onion part is already sorted 11:45 < spoonthrow> wireless = cancer and headaches 11:45 < stiell> qxt: LN public keys and their IP addresses are directly linked 11:45 < spoonthrow> if wireless, then laser is fine I guess 11:46 < lndbot1> idk, the sun bombards us with electromagnetic energy 100% of the time and most people would agree that's a good thing 11:46 < spoonthrow> but it is dangerous for operators to operate on clearnet because they make themselves a target to governments, and theives whom see balance 11:47 < qxt> stiell, yes but are the ln wallets public? Nobody and see who and what did how 11:47 < PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A> tyzbit: I see what you're saying. Also, sorry, that was a lot longer than 10 minutes :( 11:48 < stiell> qxt: AIUI, the "wallet" address is the LN public key. 11:48 < lndbot1> np, hopefully it made sense--I can be verbose sometimes. 11:51 < spoonthrow> I thought how much money ln router is storign is also public right? 11:52 -!- PV7Xwbki6qq6X9A [3306591a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.51.6.89.26] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 11:52 < lndbot1> nope, the overall capacities each node has access to is public, but you could run a node with no funds and people could open giant channels to you 11:52 < lndbot1> you still have no funds 11:52 < lndbot1> but people would see your connected capacity as a lot 11:54 < lndbot1> further, though it's not really an effective way to improve privacy, the further you are from someone else on the network, the less likely it is they'll know about you to begin with. If there were millions of LN nodes, one side of the network could have no idea what the other side looked like. 11:54 < lndbot1> right now with the current sizes though, the network isn't very "foggy" 11:54 < qxt> hmm got this 11:54 < qxt> [lncli] rpc error: code = Unknown desc = segwit address exists in wallet, can't upgrade from v4 to v5: well, we tried ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:54 < lndbot1> lol, yeah I got that too when I tried to upgrade 11:54 < qxt> going from alpha to beta. Anyway to keep my old ID? 11:54 < qxt> lndbot1, so what did you do? 11:55 < lndbot1> when you were on the alpha, did you have the seed words and stuff for your wallet? or 11:55 < qxt> lndbot1, wallet was way older then that. So no see 11:55 < qxt> seed 11:56 < qxt> but I guess I can roll back 11:56 < qxt> move my 20 bucks and do this the right way 11:56 -!- spoonthrow [a2d20242@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.210.2.66] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:57 < lndbot1> yeah your other option is to manually work with the DBs to migrate them which just requires some technical skill and custom coding/manipulation of the DBs 11:58 < lndbot1> personally, I just drained my node and wiped it when I upgraded 11:59 < lndbot1> future upgrades with the deterministic wallet will be easier, and it'll get even betterer in the future where your node can resume its whole state (channels and all) from JUST the seed. we'll get there soon. 11:59 -!- galileopy [~galileopy@unaffiliated/galileopy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:00 < qxt> lndbot1, yup will roll back. Drop in my old wallet. Send the funds to my core node. Make a new wallet and send funds to it. Keep my 24 words for future stuff 12:02 < lndbot1> qxt, you could save a step by spinning up a new node and generating an address, then reverting and sending to new address 12:04 < qxt> Kinda of silly to use 24 words when the 128 bits of entropy from 12 words is about the same that used with Secp256k1 12:05 < qxt> lndbot1, I am literally the laziest person on earth. ofc you are right though. 12:09 -!- bill_ [800cb506@gateway/web/freenode/ip.128.12.181.6] has joined #lnd 12:10 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 12:11 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has joined #lnd 12:14 < lndbot1> the additional words are necessary to encode other information not covered by the standard such as wallet birthday https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/769 12:15 < lndbot1> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/719#issuecomment-362670788 also 12:18 -!- bill_ [800cb506@gateway/web/freenode/ip.128.12.181.6] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:22 < k1234> question: why do I have a constant stream of errors in my terminal from lnd? I have no debug tag set. EXAMPLE: 2018-03-19 15:20:51.940 [ERR] DISC: Router rejected channel edge: unable to fetch utxo for chan_id=564086848476676096, chan_point=8768defcc1cba0667679bde814364336bb4695175ddc9641847b5692a4ed900c:0: target output has been spent 12:22 < k1234> is there a way to suppress this? 12:22 < lndbot1> qxt, the 24 words include an internal/external version, internal/external checksum, salt, birthday, and entropy. so there’s a good bit of extra crypto in order to safely encrypt/pw protect your seed, as well as the additional info mentioned by tyzbit 12:26 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 12:27 < k1234> even --debuglevel=info is a lot of info... 12:37 < NoImNotNineVolt> anyone wanna open a channel to my node on testnet? 12:38 < NoImNotNineVolt> i guess that's a lazy request. nevermind. 12:45 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] wilmerpaulino opened pull request #889: chainntnfs: add incremental update notifications within ChainNotifier (master...chainnotifier-updates) https://git.io/vxGcb 12:52 -!- rls [~rls@user-24-236-81-141.knology.net] has joined #lnd 12:54 -!- lndbot [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd 12:54 -!- lndbot1 [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:55 -!- Ytxyyuu2 [~Ytxyyuu@78-71-46-150-no260.tbcn.telia.com] has joined #lnd 12:55 -!- rls [~rls@user-24-236-81-141.knology.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:55 -!- Ytxyyuu2 [~Ytxyyuu@78-71-46-150-no260.tbcn.telia.com] has quit [Client Quit] 12:56 -!- psyopp [~rls@74.120.222.234] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 12:56 -!- rls [~rls@user-24-236-81-141.knology.net] has joined #lnd 12:58 -!- Ytxyyuu [~Ytxyyuu@78-71-46-150-no260.tbcn.telia.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 13:02 -!- someone235 [~someone23@unaffiliated/someone235] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:03 -!- someone235 [~someone23@unaffiliated/someone235] has joined #lnd 13:03 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wizchbechkexszda] has joined #lnd 13:07 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 13:14 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 13:15 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [] 13:17 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 13:17 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has joined #lnd 13:21 -!- aakselrod [aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd 13:24 < qxt> rolling back git so I can plug in my old wallet and send the funds to some other wallet. When was the wallet format changed ? 13:25 < qxt> 2 weeks ago-ish? 13:25 < qxt> git checkout `git rev-list -n 1 --before="when was wallet changed" master` 13:26 < qxt> date or commit is fine 13:42 < NoImNotNineVolt> trying to figure out how to optimize new channel placement. 13:44 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has joined #lnd 13:45 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 13:46 -!- Pioklo__ [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 13:51 < lndbot> I mused about that once here https://gist.github.com/tyzbit/f1d0cf4904c61ec510bd4779eb8f1cdc (warning: long, rambling and possibly entirely inaccurate) 13:57 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd 13:59 < lndbot> anyone have litecoind running with lnd? 13:59 < lndbot> yep! 14:00 < lndbot> ah must have not compiled with zmq, compiled litecoind this for other purposes, back to compilinggggg 14:01 < lndbot> lol it should do it automatically if zmq is installed (me thinks) 14:08 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [] 14:10 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 14:11 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:16 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #lnd 14:17 < lndbot> derp, had testnet=1 in litecoin.conf, started with just litecoind I'm stupid 14:17 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [] 14:17 <@mlz> lol 14:18 <@mlz> y u litecoin! :D 14:18 < lndbot> yolo 14:20 < lndbot> testnet with bitcoind is so slow with lnd, but seems much faster with litecoin on mainnet 14:21 -!- fusion44 [~fusion44@p2E59F969.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 14:21 <@roasbeef> slow as in catch up? 14:21 <@roasbeef> it's because bitcoind doesn't have in-daemon rescan like btcd 14:21 <@roasbeef> so we need to do it manually 14:21 < qxt> damn forgot to close one of my nodes channels when I upgraded. The wallet is fine but I would like to close that channel. Anyway to do it? 14:22 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:23 <@roasbeef> once they merged in bip 158 and also get an rpc 14:25 < qxt> roasbeef, anyway to close/reconnect with my unclosed channel after i updated. Got a few buck in there. 14:25 <@roasbeef> qxt: go back and lcose out the channel? 14:26 < qxt> roasbeef, yeah 14:26 <@roasbeef> yeh i mean attempt to do that? 14:26 < lndbot> Ye, lnd so much better with btcd when synced 14:26 < qxt> roasbeef, when I try to connect with that node again it does not want to be my peer 14:26 <@roasbeef> qxt: so you may need to force close that channel 14:27 < qxt> roasbeef, =/ Ill give that a shot 14:27 <@roasbeef> what do you mean it doesn't want to be your peer? 14:27 < lndbot> will it though? Haven't seen much discussion on whether that'll happen, haven't really paid attention there though 14:27 < NoImNotNineVolt> so i'm on testnet, i've identified "PuzzleITC" 03f113414ebdc6c1fb0f33c99cd5a1d09dd79e7fdf2468cf1fe1af6674361695d2 as a well-connected node... 14:27 <@roasbeef> as in maybe the wiped their state? and don't recognize the channel? 14:27 <@roasbeef> NoImNotNineVolt: aliases are meaningful 14:27 <@roasbeef> justin: will what? 14:27 <@roasbeef> NoImNotNineVolt: errr meaningless 14:28 < NoImNotNineVolt> ah, was about to say, because they're not unique :P 14:28 < lndbot> implement and merge bip 158 in? Anyone working on that? 14:28 < NoImNotNineVolt> either way, that's why i put the pub_key as well. 14:29 < NoImNotNineVolt> so, presumably i need to be connected to a node before i can open a channel with them (directly)? and if i'm unable to connect for whatever reason, then i should move on to the next potential candidate? 14:29 <@roasbeef> justin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12254 14:29 <@roasbeef> NoImNotNineVolt: why are you trying to do this manually? there's infra to do it progrmatically within lnd 14:29 < lndbot> oh nice! \o/ ty 14:29 < NoImNotNineVolt> roasbeef: i'm using lncli. 14:31 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has joined #lnd 14:32 < Veggen> roasbeef: right now, there's too many unreliable nodes on. So I do it manually too. 14:32 < NoImNotNineVolt> either way, when i `lncli connect 03f113414ebdc6c1fb0f33c99cd5a1d09dd79e7fdf2468cf1fe1af6674361695d2@5.102.147.62:9735` 14:32 <@roasbeef> well they're on testnet 14:33 < NoImNotNineVolt> i'm an idiot :P 14:33 < Veggen> oh, on testnet. There, I used autoconnect too :) 14:33 < lndbot> 2018-03-19 21:23:39.285 [DBG] LNWL: Failed to process consensus server notification (name: `blockconnected`, detail: `failed to store sync information dfa93be02608012aa355fdc188c00b0d35b4aa75f17ba30a384b8ffe1ff7af20: failed to fetch block hash for height 1388165: couldn't get hash from database`) Normal? 14:33 < asoltys> hi, I'm trying to fire up a mainnet lnd node connecting to bitcoind on the same host. Just went through wallet creation step and caught up to height 430000 before spitting out this: "LNWL: Unable to synchronize wallet to chain: Post http://localhost:8332: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:8332: connect: cannot assign requested address" 14:33 < Veggen> (use, still) 14:34 < qxt> roasbeef, after I forgot to close the channel I then deleted my .lnd since I was using alfa. Did not upgrade but ran the just the old wallet.dat since beta has a new wallet format. All works. The walletbalance was correct but I did not have any peers or open channels. Should have 15 bucks in a channel though. 14:34 < qxt> roasbeef, anyway for me to get the 15bucks back? 14:34 < Veggen> qxt: delete channel.db, and they are gone. 14:35 <@roasbeef> aakselrod: ^ 14:35 < qxt> roasbeef, what happens if the guy I had the channel with closes it on his side? 14:35 < aakselrod> yeah, i just demoted that to debug so it didn't bother people 14:36 < aakselrod> so normal 14:36 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has joined #lnd 14:36 < aakselrod> as long as your instance continues to stay in sync with the blockchain, at least 14:36 < lndbot> yeah, still syncing up 14:36 < aakselrod> ok, then normal :) if not, it's a bug 14:37 < aakselrod> i've got bitcoind reconnection almost finished for when bitcoind goes away and lnd continues to run 14:38 <@roasbeef> qxt: if it was a prior version, then you no longer have the keys 14:38 < qxt> roasbeef, oh well 14:39 < Veggen> qxt: only thing you can do, is roll back code - if you have a copy of the deleted channel.db somewhere. 14:39 < Veggen> but without it, no. 14:39 -!- mode/#lnd [+o aakselrod] by mlz 14:39 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 14:39 < qxt> Veggen, and I do...gotta love the auto snapshot on ZFS 14:40 <@aakselrod> mlz: thanks! 14:40 < Veggen> then roll back to the previous version you ran, put channel.db in place, and it might work. 14:40 <@aakselrod> i should set up an eggdrop on an old pi :P 14:40 * aakselrod eyes the growing collection of rpis next to him 14:41 < asoltys> nm about my issue above, restarting lnd seems to have done the trick 14:46 <@aakselrod> asoltys: that should be fixed by the reconnection fix 14:46 < asoltys> cool 14:52 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:59 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:59 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has joined #lnd 15:01 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has joined #lnd 15:03 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 15:04 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [Client Quit] 15:08 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has joined #lnd 15:17 < qxt> Veggen, ok the ZFS snapshot had a backup of my channel.db. Just out of curiously lets say I could not recover the channel.db and the node that had made a channel with decided to close the channel. Would my locked funds get sent back to my wallet? 15:18 < qxt> Only one party is needed to close the channel and funds are in there should get sent to their respective owners right? 15:32 -!- MaxSan [~user@86.105.9.67] has joined #lnd 15:34 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 15:35 < Veggen> I don't think they can find an address to your main wallet. 15:35 < Veggen> hmm..or they could return to same address from funding tx. I guess. But don't think it works like that :) (will leave answer to someone else) 15:41 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@cpe-67-240-56-42.nycap.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 15:42 -!- anome [~anome@unaffiliated/anome] has quit [] 15:43 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has joined #lnd 15:45 < drexl> channel closing transactions are signed when the channel is opened i think 15:45 < drexl> so it should be fine 15:45 < lndbot> ^ yes, exactly. channel updates are really just non-broadcasted Bitcoin transactions that send the funds to both parties 15:46 -!- marigold [3e2f9c2b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.47.156.43] has joined #lnd 15:46 < lndbot> force closed channels are timelocked transactions though -- cooperative closures aren't encumbered so the funds are spendable once confirmed on the blockchain 15:47 -!- Pioklo_ [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has joined #lnd 15:47 < lndbot> slightly oversimplified 15:48 < marigold> hey did anyone tried to setup lnd on a LTC node ? - I am just curious did I have to instal also roasbeef btcd because I cant find a roasbeed ltcd !? 15:49 < lightningbot1> marigold, ltcsuite/ltcd has most everything in roasbeef/btcd 15:50 < lightningbot1> only important difference atm is that the dynamic fee estimation in roasbeef/btcd has not been ported over 15:50 < lightningbot1> if you’re planning to run mainnet, current recommendation is to use litecoind 15:50 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 15:52 -!- Pioklo_ [~Pioklo@5.83.71.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:52 < marigold> okay thanks, I planing to try it out on the testnet first.. so I will use the ltcsuite 15:57 < qxt> lndbot, so does that mean that if one party lost the channel.db and the other party closes the channels that the funds should get sent back to the wallets they came from? 15:58 -!- wxss [~user@209.58.165.1] has quit [Quit: leaving] 15:58 < qxt> or if anybody else knows for sure ... looking at roasbeef :) 16:05 -!- danielh_ [~danielh@speedtest.sbbs.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:05 -!- danielh_ [~danielh@speedtest.sbbs.se] has joined #lnd 16:09 -!- melvster [~melvin@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 16:11 < lndbot> yes, in theory but losing the channel.db shouldn't be a normal occurrence 16:14 <@mlz> marigold, don't use ltcsuite, use ltcd here: https://github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/ 16:16 <@mlz> oh sorry just saw what conner said 16:16 <@mlz> so use litecoind 16:17 -!- onryo [~onryo@c-65a7d954.501702014125-0-757473696b74.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has joined #lnd 16:42 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@104.137.194.255] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 16:43 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has joined #lnd 16:58 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:00 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:00 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has joined #lnd 17:01 -!- marigold [3e2f9c2b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.47.156.43] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 17:01 -!- kvuser7 [c61bc74a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.198.27.199.74] has joined #lnd 17:03 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 17:12 -!- kvuser7 [c61bc74a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.198.27.199.74] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 17:15 -!- CraniumDad [4b83ca64@gateway/web/freenode/ip.75.131.202.100] has joined #lnd 17:17 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd 17:19 -!- BlackSheep [~yaaic@109.73.88.218] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 17:42 < k1234> question: is blockstream's lightning network node down? I'm getting an "inactive" indication when I do lncli listchannels. What am I missing? 17:42 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@cpe-67-240-56-42.nycap.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: colatkinson] 17:43 < k1234> ie: { "active": false, "remote_pubkey": "02f6725f9c1c40333b67faea92fd211c183050f28df32cac3f9d69685fe9665432", 17:44 < lndbot> channels don't need to be active all the time. there's only a problem if it's not usable for payments. further, for blockstream's node specifically, it's running c-lightning rather than lnd, so there always could be a compatibility issue or something 17:46 < k1234> hmm... ok. thought the BOLTs were meant to ensure interoperability? 18:00 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lnd 18:01 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@153.142.228.110] has joined #lnd 18:02 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@153.142.228.110] has quit [Client Quit] 18:02 <@roasbeef> k1234: well a spec is diff from an implementation, which mayhave bugs 18:03 <@roasbeef> k1234: but they seeem to be updating their node as it's running a pretty old version and they've fixed a buncha bugs since they initially created it 18:04 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: drexl] 18:04 -!- larafale [~larafale@ax213-1-82-66-157-194.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:07 < k1234> thx. 18:13 < k1234> trying to connect to a new peer (lncli connect 020d3d5995a973c878e3f6e5f59da54078304c537f981d7dcef73367ecbea0e90e@173.249.28.20:9735). But after executing this it isn't listed in my lncli listpeers. Why? 18:16 <@roasbeef> may have dropped the connection for w/e reason 18:17 < k1234> ok. 18:18 < k1234> also: blockstream's node just forced-closed my channel :( looks like they're still updating! 18:18 -!- ajph_ [~ajph@unaffiliated/ajph] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 18:35 -!- psyopp [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 18:37 < k1234> help: trying to pay invoice (lncli payinvoice), got this error: "payment_error": "Unable to apply channel update: unable to fetch chan point for chan_id=8492979061937: tx_index=#12152064 is out of range (max_index=0), network_chan_id=(*lnwire.ShortChannelID)(0xc420994000)(7:12152064:1201)\n\n", "payment_preimage": "", "payment_route": null 18:37 < k1234> thoughts? 18:39 -!- rls [~rls@user-24-236-81-141.knology.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:39 -!- MaxSan [~user@86.105.9.67] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:39 -!- cryptodechange [~cryptodec@host86-142-246-125.range86-142.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 18:42 < k1234> question: every node I push an amount to during openchanel (ie: --local_amt=80000 --push_amt=5000) (ex: txid: 9e37a6651b563581bf2f65558ac394f81491ae7e59e28a1e1738285f582534e5) force-closes the channel shortly after it's confirmed. Why is this? 18:46 <@mlz> k1234, want to try my node? 18:46 <@mlz> k1234, oh you want to buy a sticker? 18:47 < k1234> ha! yes! 18:47 < k1234> how can you tell? 18:47 <@mlz> k1234, right now i don't think you can open a channel with Blockstream store at all, so many bad reports from other people 18:48 <@mlz> k1234, want to look at this store and buy something else? https://hodlmonkey.com/shop/ 18:48 -!- cryptodechange [~cryptodec@host86-142-246-125.range86-142.btcentralplus.com] has joined #lnd 18:49 <@mlz> hm 80k sats might not be enough though 18:51 < k1234> ha! yeah: hodlmonke.com is a bit more than $1.99 for a sticker! 18:52 -!- colatkinson [~colatkins@67.240.56.42] has joined #lnd 18:52 < k1234> but seriously: how did you know I wanted to buy a sticker? Can you walk me through that? (IE: I posted a txid and you knew what I was doing?) 18:53 <@mlz> because Blockstream store was opened to sell silly stickers :P 18:54 < k1234> yes. 18:54 <@mlz> and i've heard some people made their orders two months ago, still haven't got the stickers 18:54 < k1234> ha! well, that's unfortunate. 18:54 <@mlz> then some others received double shippings 18:54 < k1234> so hodlmonkey.com/shop doesn't do double shippings ;) 18:55 <@mlz> lol 18:56 < k1234> mlz: what's your node? 039376f846cb4e137f3474baa7fbe74ec627745c7d5c54935b99fbb1b60a62c9b3@159.65.162.130:9735 ? 18:57 <@mlz> no, that's holdmonkey store's node 18:57 < k1234> yours? 18:57 <@mlz> pm 18:59 <@roasbeef> k1234: do you know what push amount is? 18:59 <@roasbeef> you're giving them money 19:00 <@roasbeef> k1234: once again, their node is being upgraded as it was on an old verison, for example, that's an invalid cahnnel update toe send in response to a failure 19:02 < k1234> yes, I know what it is. But according to Veggen, something something "more robust network" 19:02 <@roasbeef> lnd nodes won't randomly close out channels, so perhaps c-lightning or eclair nodes are for some reason 19:02 < k1234> ie: that's why opening channels with push amounts is desirable from a network design perspective. There are a few ways to accomplish balanced channels as well. 19:02 < k1234> (see above) 19:04 <@roasbeef> or just loop to your self, or just send to your other node, or just wait for actual payment flows to come along 19:04 < k1234> got it... thanks. 19:11 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef opened pull request #893: routing: add timeout during pay attempts, don't exit if unable apply update, account for all onion errors (master...routing-error-handling-bug-fix) https://git.io/vxGN0 19:16 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef opened pull request #894: peer: ensure we stop the channel if error happens in loadActiveChannels (master...peer-stop-channel) https://git.io/vxGNd 19:18 -!- friyin [~kvirc@2001:470:ce10:10::711] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:23 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:30 < NoImNotNineVolt> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/961a/de87faa43de091483abe059b57a51a28498b.pdf 19:30 < NoImNotNineVolt> thinking about trying my hand at maybe implementing that 19:33 <@roasbeef> NoImNotNineVolt: as an optional autopilot plugin? 19:34 < NoImNotNineVolt> oh, ha, baby steps! :P 19:34 < NoImNotNineVolt> "We also solve the converse problem in the same time bound: given an input number k, increase the connectivity of G as much as possible by adding at most k edges." 19:35 < NoImNotNineVolt> just saw that and was like "hm." 19:46 < NoImNotNineVolt> ah that's still not the right algorithm for what i was thinking. 20:11 -!- CraniumDad [4b83ca64@gateway/web/freenode/ip.75.131.202.100] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 20:15 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20:50 -!- pwkad [pwkad@gateway/shell/xshellz/x-iuwndtwndmiepgjm] has joined #lnd 21:04 -!- Gavin [3b642287@gateway/web/freenode/ip.59.100.34.135] has joined #lnd 21:14 -!- camulos [~user@125.161.128.57] has joined #lnd 21:36 -!- rttr [630b113a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.99.11.17.58] has joined #lnd 21:37 -!- rttr [630b113a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.99.11.17.58] has quit [Client Quit] 21:37 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:39 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:39 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has joined #lnd 21:50 -!- psyopp [~rls@67.215.10.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:53 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 21:54 -!- Gavin [3b642287@gateway/web/freenode/ip.59.100.34.135] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 21:59 -!- golf7 [~golf7@cpe-65-190-27-181.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:59 -!- golf7-tes [~golf7@cpe-65-190-27-181.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 22:24 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:25 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 22:28 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:29 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 22:31 -!- dionysus69 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/dionysus69] has joined #lnd 22:37 -!- offerm [546f8b93@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.111.139.147] has joined #lnd 22:44 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:45 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 22:47 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:47 -!- rls [~rls@67.215.10.250] has joined #lnd 23:05 -!- offerm [546f8b93@gateway/web/freenode/ip.84.111.139.147] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 23:16 -!- creslin [~textual@deposing-waterfront.volia.net] has joined #lnd 23:21 -!- creslin [~textual@deposing-waterfront.volia.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 23:23 -!- quitobro [quitobro@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/quitobro] has quit [Quit: quitobro] 23:36 -!- melvster [~melvin@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #lnd 23:52 -!- onryo [~onryo@c-65a7d954.501702014125-0-757473696b74.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:58 -!- onryo [~onryo@84.217.167.101] has joined #lnd