--- Log opened Tue Jul 05 00:00:12 2022 05:56 -!- andytosh1 is now known as andytoshi 10:17 -!- evanlinjin [~root@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:17 -!- evanlinjin [~root@gateway/tor-sasl/evanlinjin] has joined #bitcoin-rust 19:08 < ariard> BlueMatt[m]: hey do we have data on the success rate of first-routing attempt of HTLC sends? and do you think we can make it equal to 99.9999% in the future? 19:09 < BlueMatt[m]> you mean like without any knowledge of channel reliability, just based on the network graph? 19:09 < BlueMatt[m]> i could look something up but there's no way in hell we're ever gonna get that to 6 nines lol 19:10 < ariard> what do you mean by channel reliability, like probing? 19:10 < BlueMatt[m]> or at least having sent many payments to learn which channels are reliable 19:10 < BlueMatt[m]> if you accept downloading scoring data from a third party you could probably do okay, with trampoline probably quite good, but you always get a lot of failures that are just "recipient has no liquieity" 19:10 < ariard> okay good to know, we're finishing some channel jamming research, and one of the conclusion for upfront fee sounds should be paid at HTLC forward, though if rate failure too high sounds not fair for HTLC senders 19:10 < BlueMatt[m]> liquidity 19:11 < ariard> okay "recipient has no liquidity" too high 19:11 < BlueMatt[m]> right, yea, you just see a lot of failures in practice 19:11 < ariard> maybe if we assume perfect knowledge of the balance, like the hops could announce their balance 19:11 < ariard> though you will still have issues with information propagation 19:12 < BlueMatt[m]> yea, i mean sure if you broke everyone's privacy maybe you could do okay 19:13 < ariard> maybe if we have 99% only, and the routing fees far in the future are medium, that might an "acceptable" loss 19:14 < BlueMatt[m]> i think the only future in which lightning has any privacy is one where we accept that payment failure rate will be kinda high and we have to retry a lot 19:14 < BlueMatt[m]> there are ways to make the retry less painful too, eg the sender over paying and making the recipient ask for something mixed into the preimage 19:14 < ariard> hmmmm, so attaching an upfront fee to any retry not good 19:16 < ariard> well the recipient mixing into the preimage that's still a risk for the routing hop, introducing an upfront fee the purpose would be to hedge against that, i think 19:17 < ariard> okay, i'll mind the payment failure rate gonna stay high, even if i don't like the answer for a practical upfront fee scheme :/ 19:18 < BlueMatt[m]> right i dont mean as a protection against jamming, i mean as a way to allow you to send more htlcs than the payment is for 19:18 < BlueMatt[m]> "over-commit" the payment and then only let the recipient claim the right amount 20:39 -!- z9z0b3t1c [~z9z0b3t1c@145.224.65.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 20:45 -!- z9z0b3t1c [z9z0b3t1c@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/z9z0b3t1c] has joined #bitcoin-rust 23:35 -!- z9z0b3t1_ [z9z0b3t1c@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/z9z0b3t1c] has joined #bitcoin-rust 23:38 -!- z9z0b3t1c [z9z0b3t1c@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/z9z0b3t1c] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] --- Log closed Wed Jul 06 00:00:13 2022