--- Log opened Tue May 26 00:00:31 2020
00:09 -!- kristapsk_ is now known as kristapsk
00:10 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:42 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:01 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@31.4.243.160] has joined #c-lightning
01:19 < m-schmoock> cdecker: I'm trying write a backwards compat plugin test where I need to have my RPC API response to a certain call (i.e. listpeers) modified to look like an old server. I havent found a working way to acomplish that from within testcase, as the plyn.client.lightning.LightningRPC objects in the test are different instances than for the tested plugin itself. otherwise I coul override and hook the 
01:19 < m-schmoock> method and forge the response I need to test for
01:19 < m-schmoock> Do you know a good/better/proper way for something like this?
01:28 < m-schmoock> Something like this in the test:    https://pastebin.com/3zhhswkq
01:38 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@31.4.243.160] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:44 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@31.4.243.160] has joined #c-lightning
01:44 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.170.134.59] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:46 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.223.195] has joined #c-lightning
01:46 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning
01:53 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:17 -!- jonatack [~jon@184.75.223.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:20 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.167.96] has joined #c-lightning
02:20 -!- k3tan [~pi@unaffiliated/k3tan] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:22 -!- k3tan [~pi@unaffiliated/k3tan] has joined #c-lightning
02:32 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@31.4.243.160] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:38 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #c-lightning
02:45 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:45 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #c-lightning
03:15 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@47.61.117.157] has joined #c-lightning
03:17 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@47.61.117.157] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:17 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@47.61.117.157] has joined #c-lightning
03:23 <@cdecker> m-schmoock: you could use the `rpc_method` hook in a plugin to intercept the RPC method call and return a mocked result, together with the monkey-patching of the pyln-client library you found, that's probably the easiest solution
03:25 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #c-lightning
03:39 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Quit: leaving]
03:40 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #c-lightning
03:45 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
04:17 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #c-lightning
04:19 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:19 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@47.61.117.157] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:28 < m-schmoock> cdecker: am i correct that this would require me to have test code in the plugin (not the test)
04:28 < m-schmoock> i was trying to get around this
04:33 <@cdecker> We could create a generic mock plugin that has RPC calls that can set or remove mock responses. It'd still be an extra plugin, but you could drive it from the test itself, keeping the logic in one place
04:58 -!- b42 [~mmilata@b42.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:01 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #c-lightning
06:07 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:20 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #c-lightning
06:21 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #c-lightning
06:25 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:31 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #c-lightning
06:34 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:34 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #c-lightning
06:35 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #c-lightning
06:37 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
07:13 < fiatjaf> will the rpc_command plugin intercept rpc methods that don't exist?
07:13 < fiatjaf> I wanted to do a plugin that would intercept a method if it existed or create it if it didn't
07:14 <@cdecker> Good question, I don't think it would, but if there's a good use-case it might be worth adding that support
07:14 < fiatjaf> maybe I can call the `"help"` method before registering the plugin and see if it exists?
07:14 < fiatjaf> maybe not
07:15 < fiatjaf> well, I won't go ahead and say my use-case is "good", I don't want to give you people more work, it's nothing urgent, and just a vague idea for the future :P
07:16 <@cdecker> Hehe, sounds interesting, do you mind sharing what you're implementing?
07:16 < m-schmoock> cdecker: that sounds useful for testing. I have a tiny cleanup PR for drain, but the code coverage was bad so i wanted a test for it. but I cant to it without something like that
07:16 < m-schmoock> so I will finish the PR without that and we keep something like that in mind
07:17 < m-schmoock> theres still a another bug so dont merge it right away
07:24 -!- liberliver1 [~Thunderbi@x590eb21b.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #c-lightning
07:25 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@144.49.211.130.bc.googleusercontent.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:25 -!- liberliver1 is now known as liberliver
07:27 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has left #c-lightning []
07:27 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has joined #c-lightning
07:32 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@x590eb21b.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:33 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@x590eb21b.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #c-lightning
07:35 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:37 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning
07:49 <@cdecker> Ok, if a PR isn't ready either publish it as a draft (triangle dropdown next to green create pull request button) or prefix with "WIP" and I won't merge it, but we can already start discussing on the PR ^^
07:49 -!- liberliver1 [~Thunderbi@x4dbf7df8.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #c-lightning
07:50 < fiatjaf> cdecker: on that issue you said you attempt a mutual close even if there are HTLCs hanging
07:51 < fiatjaf> how can that be even possible?
07:51 < fiatjaf> I fail to understand completely
07:51 < fiatjaf> if you can negotiate a mutual close shouldn't you also be able to negotiate a new channel state and keep the channel open?
07:51 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@x590eb21b.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:51 -!- liberliver1 is now known as liberliver
07:52 < fiatjaf> help me clarify this: if there's an HTLC `h` in the channel `A-h->B` and it's stuck
07:53 < fiatjaf> after a while A should close the channel if B doesn't show up with the preimage
07:53 < fiatjaf> and A should only do that because otherwise B may close the channel and redeem `h` after its expiry time
07:54 < fiatjaf> and that may cause A to lose money (if A was routing that from another channel, like: Z-->A-->B)
07:56 < fiatjaf> now if A and B can negotiate and remove `h` from their channel and go onchain in a mutual close to which party does the HTLC amount go?
07:57 <@cdecker> No, the HTLC forces the channel to close, because there is no safe way to removing the HTLC from the current state we really can't make any progress
07:58 <@cdecker> It's independent from our ability to negotiate a new state, it basically means that we'll need to drop to chain in the hopes of getting the preimage from downstream, otherwise we could end up in a situation where the HTLC timeout expires, we just got the preimage, and now it's a race between timeout and success
07:59 <@cdecker> This is common to all off-chain protocols: if whatever we build on top of the update mechanism (LN-penalty or eltoo) has an absolute deadline that is to be enforced on-chain, we need to drop on-chain before the absolute timeout expires, otherwise we cannot enforce the timeout safely
08:21 -!- b42 [~mmilata@b42.cz] has joined #c-lightning
08:30 -!- grubles [~blockhash@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #c-lightning
08:32 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:37 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:37 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #c-lightning
08:41 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:42 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has joined #c-lightning
08:43 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@x4dbf7df8.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:54 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.167.96] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:55 -!- jonatack [~jon@137.63.71.51] has joined #c-lightning
09:01 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning
09:17 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:18 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has joined #c-lightning
09:21 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:23 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:25 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #c-lightning
09:49 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nwhrqykzfjqebyji] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:00 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has quit [Quit: bye, freenode]
10:02 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined #c-lightning
10:04 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wewbinccpvgccayq] has joined #c-lightning
10:06 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wewbinccpvgccayq] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
10:16 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #c-lightning
10:17 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eadykpujquhkfhwd] has joined #c-lightning
10:20 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eadykpujquhkfhwd] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
10:21 -!- Letze [sid63391@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-whloonpjsvvcxmzb] has joined #c-lightning
11:47 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:20 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:21 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning
12:35 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:50 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #c-lightning
13:07 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #c-lightning
13:54 < fiatjaf> so the closing transaction would have, say, 3 outputs? one to node A, other to node B and a third to an HTLC (in case there's only one in-flight HTLC)?
14:18 -!- jonatack [~jon@137.63.71.51] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:20 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.165.158] has joined #c-lightning
15:07 -!- sr_gi_ [~sr_gi@183.red-83-34-186.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
15:43 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has left #c-lightning []
15:43 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has joined #c-lightning
15:58 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:07 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:19 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:22 < zmnscpxj> fiatjaf: yes, that is correct.
16:23 < zmnscpxj> that applies to all unilateral close transactions
16:23 < zmnscpxj> for mutual close, our policy is to wait for in-flight HTLCs to either resolve or fail offchain, and prevent adding new HTLCs while waiting
16:24 < zmnscpxj> so that mutual closes are "clean" and involve just the "main" output(s)
16:24 < fiatjaf> zmnscpxj: then I'm confused again
16:24 < zmnscpxj> why?
16:25 < fiatjaf> I had channels mutual-closed without any command from me or from the other node
16:25 < fiatjaf> then cdecker told me they were closed because of stuck HTLCs
16:25 < zmnscpxj> *were* those mutual?
16:25 < fiatjaf> then I said: "but they were mutual closed!"
16:25 < zmnscpxj> that would be very strange
16:26 < fiatjaf> lightningd classifies them as mutual closed
16:26 < zmnscpxj> because the code path never enter closingd in that case
16:26 < zmnscpxj> hmmmmmmm
16:26 < fiatjaf> and they don't have OP_CSV outputs
16:26 < zmnscpxj> anyway have to go afk
16:26 < zmnscpxj> but that needs analysis
16:26 < fiatjaf> ok
16:26 < fiatjaf> analysis is all I desire
16:44 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:44 -!- cltrbreak_MAD2 [~ctrlbreak@159.2.182.106] has joined #c-lightning
16:45 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning
16:48 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #c-lightning
16:58 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.170.255.11] has joined #c-lightning
17:01 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.165.158] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:48 < rusty> fiatjaf: they're unilateral in that case.  We never start a mutual close unless instructed (eg. by a plugin?)
18:07 < fiatjaf> well, now I think I was misled by two different source without actually checking
18:07 < fiatjaf> I checked now and indeed they weren't mutual-closed
18:07 < fiatjaf> I think
18:08 < fiatjaf> sorry for the confusion
18:09 < fiatjaf> but cdecker did say mutual-closes can happen with stuck HTLCs: https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/issues/3743#issuecomment-633968658
18:10 < fiatjaf> or maybe this is just more confusion and misunderstanding
18:14 < fiatjaf> now I'm thinking there could be a way to mutual-close even when there's an in-flight HTLC, or perhaps a way to just expel that HTLC without closing the channel
18:14 < fiatjaf> which would be odd
18:14 < fiatjaf> ok, better not think about that now
18:29 < rusty> fiatjaf: commented on issue.  I think he's wrong.
19:30 < fiatjaf> thank you
21:20 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #c-lightning
21:23 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:23 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
21:28 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.7.1]
21:29 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning
21:46 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-71-178-191-230.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.4+deb7 - https://znc.in]
21:48 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-71-178-191-230.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #c-lightning
22:32 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:38 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #c-lightning
23:44 -!- treehug88 [~textual@pool-71-105-170-196.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
23:54 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has left #c-lightning []
23:55 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-txhnryyccoeyadae] has joined #c-lightning
23:59 -!- Amperture [~amp@65.79.129.113] has joined #c-lightning
23:59 -!- Amperture [~amp@65.79.129.113] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed Wed May 27 00:00:32 2020