--- Log opened Tue Nov 12 00:00:05 2019 01:04 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 01:10 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 01:13 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 01:32 < darosior> sha-256: How did it go ? 01:37 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #c-lightning 01:38 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #c-lightning 01:46 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.203] has joined #c-lightning 01:50 -!- k3tan172 [~k3tan@unaffiliated/k3tan] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:52 -!- k3tan [k3tan@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/k3tan] has joined #c-lightning 01:53 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has joined #c-lightning 02:02 < m-schmoock> darosior: the funding TX is broadcasted after the remote accepted the channel, right? If so he just needs to delete the cannel 02:02 < m-schmoock> *channel 02:02 < darosior> Yep 02:02 < darosior> Just curious of our behavior in this case ^^ 02:14 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #c-lightning 02:34 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:38 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 02:51 -!- sha-265 [4d7d7cf9@77.125.124.249] has joined #c-lightning 02:51 < sha-265> Hi, I've open new channel on my node (v0.7.3) with ACINQ node, but the channel is stuck ins "Funding channel start: offered, now waiting for accept_channel" state. What shoud I do? 02:53 -!- slvrbckt [~Adium@2001:4878:8261:10:8968:f2c6:63ca:2f54] has joined #c-lightning 02:56 < slvrbckt> hi all, working on a POC for lightning payment using bitcoind + clightning. I am wondering how the payer can prove to the payee that it was the one who made the payment? -- the payer can see the preimage when they execute the pay, but as far as I can tell, the payee cannot see the preimage from it's cli (just that the invoice was paid, which isn't the same as verifying the preimage is correct for that payment) 02:56 < slvrbckt> with lnd I noticed the payee has access to the preimage when they are viewing their issued invoices, but that property isn't available with clightning. 03:38 <@cdecker> slvrbckt: that is partially on purpose. We don't want the invoice creator to be tricked into revealing the preimage before the payment is performed. 03:38 <@cdecker> Showing the preimage would require us to add huge warnings not to share it with anyone, similar to the huge warning bitcoin-qt adds in the debug shell 03:42 < slvrbckt> cdecker: I see, that makes sense, but I was expecting there to be some sort of verification api on the CLI which, given a preimage (and possibly the payment hash?) could verify that the preimage is correct. Since that was seeded from the invoicer/payee, right? 03:44 < slvrbckt> Or if not, what would be a reasonable set of info for a payee to request to verify that user X is the payer of the invoice? 03:44 <@cdecker> Right, the invoice state will tell you whether it was paid or not, that's the first part. You then take the preimage that the user presents you and hash it once (SHA256) and compare it with the payment_hash :-) 03:44 < slvrbckt> aha, yeah thats what I was looking for :) 03:45 <@cdecker> The preimage is an imperfect proof of payment anyway, since all nodes along the route will also have access to it, we are trying to address that at the spec level though 03:46 <@cdecker> Should be ok for now though, as long as you're not selling lambos xD 03:48 < slvrbckt> cdecker: yeah I read some articles about this exposing of the preimage along the route, and as this is just a POC it should be fine for now. thanks for clarifying that for me, making much more sense now. 03:48 < slvrbckt> cdecker: is there a name for this topic/discussion so I can track it? 03:59 < slvrbckt> Hmm, using `sha256sum` on the preimage doesn't come up the same as the payment_hash 04:07 < slvrbckt> I'm guess I need to use base64 04:27 <@cdecker> Well, you can't use sha256sum since that'd take the encoded payment_preimage and hash that (and any trailing newline), you actually need to decode the hex encoded string first, then hash it 04:55 < darosior> sha-265> You can forget the channel safely, I think 05:12 < sha-265> darosior: yep, close command released the on-chain funds 05:15 -!- sha-265 [4d7d7cf9@77.125.124.249] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:17 -!- sha-265 [4d7d7cf9@77.125.124.249] has joined #c-lightning 05:26 < sword_smith> Are lightning transactions propagated on the tor network or is that just an option you can use if you want? My question is: With default settings, does c-lightning (or other nodes) use the tor network for anything? 06:09 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 06:13 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 06:26 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.203] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 06:26 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.203] has joined #c-lightning 06:48 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:51 -!- jonatack [~jon@134.19.179.203] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 06:57 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 07:11 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 07:11 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has joined #c-lightning 07:25 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has joined #c-lightning 07:44 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:45 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has joined #c-lightning 08:01 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:03 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-nfufoseoysnzgsxq] has left #c-lightning [] 08:03 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-nfufoseoysnzgsxq] has joined #c-lightning 08:19 <@cdecker> sword_smith: TOR is only used as a transport layer between peers, there is no concept of transaction in LN (that's an on-chain thing), we only have peer-to-peer communication 08:20 <@cdecker> If you connect to a peer using a TOR address instead of an IP you are using TOR, otherwise you aren't :-) 08:22 -!- sha-265 [4d7d7cf9@77.125.124.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 08:37 -!- StopAndDecrypt [~StopAndDe@unaffiliated/stopanddecrypt] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 08:37 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #c-lightning 08:37 -!- StopAndDecrypt_ [~StopAndDe@184.75.208.74] has joined #c-lightning 08:46 < sword_smith> cdecker: Got it. I had somehow got the impression that TOR was used for p2p communication by default but I must have misunderstood. 08:47 < sword_smith> If you do not call a transfer of off-chain funds from one person to another a "transaction", what do you call it then? 08:47 < sword_smith> s/person/node/ 09:20 <@niftynei> sword_smith: i think the concept you're looking for is 'payment' 09:26 <@niftynei> i.e. "send a payment" "route a payment" "pay an invoice" 09:29 < sword_smith> niftynei: That makes sense. For outsiders (i.e. people not working on the protocol or implementations) the terminology can seem a bit arbitrary. Is the word transaction banned because you want to clearly distinguish on and off-chain transactions? 09:29 < sword_smith> Sorry. *On and off-chain transfer of funds. 09:29 < sword_smith> I will get there :) 09:31 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:31 <@niftynei> i wouldn't say it's banned, per se, it just doesn't really make sense semantically. 09:32 <@niftynei> transactions are written records of ownership, payment is the transmission of value 09:34 < sword_smith> niftynei: No. I agree. When I desgin systems, i am also very adamant that we all use the same terminology. 09:34 < harding> sword_smith: even outside of LN, there's need to distinguish between payments and transactions. E.g. payment batching is a single transaction that contains multiple payments by using multiple outputs. 09:35 < sword_smith> harding: Sure, a Bitcoin transactions can have multiple inputs and outputs, unlike an Ethereum or Ripple transaction which have one sender and one receiver. 09:38 <@niftynei> actually, if we want to be technically correct, a single LN payment requires N transactions, where N is equal to the number of channels 09:38 <@niftynei> so it doesn't really make sense to talk about "LN transactions" because that's not the level at which you're generally operating when you make a payment 09:39 <@niftynei> whereas in bitcoin, in most cases, transaction and payment are generally synonmous 09:40 < sword_smith> niftynei: I think you are contradicting cdecker now. Above, he wrote that the is no concept of transactions in LN since transactions are an on-chain thing. 09:41 <@niftynei> yes, i believe i am contradicting cdecker :) 09:41 -!- lowentropy [~lowentrop@gateway/tor-sasl/lowentropy] has joined #c-lightning 09:42 < sword_smith> I have neither opinion either or. But I would like to learn the correct terminology. Maybe I should just read the Bolt specification :-O 09:42 < sword_smith> s/neither/no/ 09:43 <@niftynei> i think we're both correct however; LN wallets have no concept of transactions 09:44 <@niftynei> i probably shouldn't have been so quick to agree to your assertion of contradiction; cdecker is correct when viewed from the 'wallet/user' level of LN 10:10 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has joined #c-lightning 10:31 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:38 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has joined #c-lightning 10:51 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:57 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 11:02 <@cdecker> Hehe, I usually use `transfer` when talking about a fund transfer off-chain, as the equivalent of an on-chain transaction, and the payment is the desired outcome (since it comes with a bit more baggage) 11:04 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:05 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 12:42 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #c-lightning 12:43 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:18 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@38.126.31.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:23 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 13:24 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 13:54 -!- reallll is now known as belcher 14:03 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@host-92-13-61-152.as43234.net] has joined #c-lightning 14:04 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@host-92-13-61-152.as43234.net] has quit [Client Quit] 14:35 -!- slvrbckt [~Adium@2001:4878:8261:10:8968:f2c6:63ca:2f54] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:05 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #c-lightning 15:05 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:07 -!- kristapsk_ is now known as kristapsk 15:27 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #c-lightning 15:29 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #c-lightning 15:31 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:05 -!- kristapsk_ is now known as kristapsk 16:21 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-nfufoseoysnzgsxq] has left #c-lightning [] 16:21 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-nfufoseoysnzgsxq] has joined #c-lightning 16:39 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 16:42 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning 17:19 -!- Amperture [~amp@65.79.129.113] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:07 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:08 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #c-lightning 18:12 <@niftynei> cdecker i'm having trouble running the python integration tests; 'ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pyln.testing'' 18:15 < rusty> niftynei: new paths for everyone! 18:16 < rusty> PYTHONPATH=`pwd`/contrib/pyln-client:`pwd`/contrib/pyln-testing:`pwd`/contrib/pylightning 18:16 < rusty> (s/`pwd`//) 18:25 <@niftynei> oh nice. thanks rusty 19:37 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:38 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning 19:38 < rusty> niftynei: crash in non-dev mode for 3236, just pushed simple fixup now. 19:54 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #c-lightning 20:30 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 20:51 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning 21:31 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #c-lightning 21:34 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:48 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #c-lightning 22:07 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:59 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] --- Log closed Wed Nov 13 00:00:06 2019