--- Log opened Wed Feb 10 00:00:25 2021
00:01 -!- CubicEarth [~CubicEart@c-67-168-1-172.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #c-lightning
00:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.157.108] has joined #c-lightning
00:52 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #c-lightning
00:55 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
01:05 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
01:08 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Client Quit]
01:08 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
01:08 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Client Quit]
01:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.157.108] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
01:17 -!- jasan [~j@2a00:1028:8398:1bb2:92e1:f72:5859:bd65] has joined #c-lightning
01:25 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:26 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning
01:31 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:32 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #c-lightning
01:33 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:37 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning
01:46 -!- zmnscpxj [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has joined #c-lightning
02:27 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Disconnected by services]
02:27 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #c-lightning
02:27 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
02:34 -!- jasan [~j@2a00:1028:8398:1bb2:92e1:f72:5859:bd65] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:35 -!- jasan [~j@2a00:1028:8398:1bb2:5018:e18d:4f46:fe0a] has joined #c-lightning
02:36 -!- jasan [~j@2a00:1028:8398:1bb2:5018:e18d:4f46:fe0a] has quit [Client Quit]
02:38 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
03:01 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:01 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:01 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has joined #c-lightning
04:00 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
04:06 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
04:08 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:08 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
04:45 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:46 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
05:09 < Guest75005> /!\ this channel has moved to ##hamradio /!\
05:11 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
05:12 < Thargoid> /!\ this channel has moved to #nyymit /!\
05:14 < bairdmichzW> /!\ this channel has moved to #nyymit /!\
05:15 < metiZl> /!\ this channel has moved to #nyymit /!\
05:28 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has left #c-lightning []
05:28 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has joined #c-lightning
05:58 -!- rny [~rny@gateway/tor-sasl/renlord] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:59 -!- rny [~rny@gateway/tor-sasl/renlord] has joined #c-lightning
06:14 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has joined #c-lightning
06:19 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has joined #c-lightning
06:20 -!- zmnscpxj [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:23 -!- madara_uchicoin [68b1c364@104-177-195-100.lightspeed.okcbok.sbcglobal.net] has joined #c-lightning
07:56 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-125-62-230-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:57 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-125-62-230-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #c-lightning
08:00 -!- madara_uchicoin [68b1c364@104-177-195-100.lightspeed.okcbok.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:59 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:00 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #c-lightning
10:19 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
10:21 < HelloShitty> Hello everyone. What means exactly this state in a forwarded payment failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE" ??
10:23 < HelloShitty> Wand what means, or what is the difference between a "status": "local_failed" and a "status": "failed" with no failedreaason field ?
10:27 < HelloShitty> Also, I've been getting tons of failed forwards with a fail status code of 4103
10:27 < HelloShitty> I wanted to try to understand why payments are failing so often with this same error
10:55 <@cdecker> It basically means that you got an incoming payment, and when forwarding it as instructed your node found the outgoing channel to be unavailable, either due to the peer being offline, capacity being insufficient, or something else
10:56 <@cdecker> If the status is "failed" that means that the payment failed further down the line, and we don't know why that's the case since the failure messages are encrypted (only the node reporting the failure and the sender can read the failure message) hence the lack of the details.
10:59 < HelloShitty> cdecker: when you say "and when forwarding it as instructed your node found the outgoing channel to be unavailable", you mean th channel in my node where the payment was supposed to exit? Or some other channel in the next hop following mine?
11:02 < HelloShitty> I have payments that failed and I have the in_channel and out_channel, but I also have other failed payments that only have the in_channel in "listforwards" output
11:03 < HelloShitty> Can we conclude anything from this like for instance, if I have the out_cahnnel ID in a failed forwarding, then the problem was in your node, if you don't have the out_cahnnel ID, then the problem was not in your node
11:04 < HelloShitty> maybe this doesn't make sense, but wanted to figure out why my node fails so many payments
11:05 <@cdecker> Yep, the out_channel must've been unavailable or had insufficient capacity at the time of the forward
11:05 < HelloShitty> I'll check the ones that I have both in_channel and out_channel to see if there was a problem with liquidity, but that's all that I can see
11:06 < HelloShitty> yes cdecker but that doesn't make sense, I guess. At least to someone that don't know the technology to a deep level as a dev
11:06 < HelloShitty> because if my node is online, the channels I have for outgoing liquidity should be available, no?
11:07 < HelloShitty> Or that might mean that the other end of my outgoing channel might be unavailable?
11:08 < HelloShitty> And what anout the failed payments that I don't have the "out_channel" in the listforwards output?
11:08 < HelloShitty> s/anout/about
11:09 <@cdecker> Missing out_channel might refer to a closed channel, which we no longer have in the DB. Re failed forwards: both you and your peer need to be online, and the liquidity must be available
11:09 <@cdecker> fwiw most of these are because of liquidity being unavailable at the time
11:10 < HelloShitty> But the routing only checks for the path? Doesn't check for the liquiity in the first place?
11:11 < HelloShitty> I mean, if the routing selection algorithm checks for liquidity along the path, it shouldn't fail the payments
11:11 < HelloShitty> Or isn't this even possible?
11:12 <@cdecker> It can't check the liquidity, that information is highly volatile (it'd DoS the network if we were to share it) and it is also private (balance changes could be followed to deanonymize sender and recipient)
11:12 < HelloShitty> ah ok
11:12 <@cdecker> The routing algos can only see the total capacity in a channell, not on whos side it currently it (also because it might be well outdated when our payment gets there)
11:13 < HelloShitty> I have been playing with fees a bit to see if by changing fees I can kinda force payments to fo preferrably through one channel instead of going through some other channel
11:13 < HelloShitty> but I'm not sure this can even take any effect in the routing selection
11:14 < HelloShitty> s/fo preferrably/go preferrably
11:15 <@cdecker> It should be considered, but will only have an effect if the change results in a route over your node becoming more competitive with other routes at the sender's disposal, so it may not have an effect until you underbid the competition
11:15 < HelloShitty> ahh ok, I understand
11:16 <@cdecker> Oh, and it'll take a couple of minutes to inform the network as a whole, so don't expect a sudden increase after changing it :-)
11:16 < HelloShitty> so, if my neighborhood is all praticing lower fees than me, then, it won't takea any effect on routing selection, I guess
11:16 < HelloShitty> yes, of course
11:16 < HelloShitty> I mean, I have been changing fees in a week time frame
11:17 < HelloShitty> but it has been 2 weeks that my node don't settle any forwarding
11:17 <@cdecker> Depends on sender/recipient pairs, since depending on their path you might be the cheapest, while for others you're expensive.
11:18 < HelloShitty> and I have been having some proposals for forwadings, but they all have been failing
11:19 < HelloShitty> I know my node is not a state of the art regarding connectivity and stability and etc, but even so, I think at least a couple of forwardings should be coming through
11:19 < HelloShitty> global baalance is probably around 65% incoming 45% outgoing
11:19 < HelloShitty> and I have 3 smaller channels under 1 million sats and 2 channels over 1 million sats
11:20 < HelloShitty> So I think it should be a bit more "availability" to forward a few payments
11:20 <@cdecker> Yeah, pretty much the same for me, I have 4% local_failed, 66% failed, and 30% settled
11:20 <@cdecker> At least I'm not the one failing payments (local_failed ratio is low)
11:21 < HelloShitty> yeah, I was also asking about what really means local_failed and failed
11:21 < HelloShitty> local_failed must be me the guilty one
11:21 <@cdecker> 99% of local_failed are also temporary channel failures
11:22 < HelloShitty> but the failed is probably more vast definition
11:22 < HelloShitty> temporary channel failures means lack of in/out liquidity?
11:22 <@cdecker> Yeah, those can vary a lot
11:22 <@cdecker> temporary might be peer offline or liquidity out
11:22 < HelloShitty> ok
11:23 < HelloShitty> My node has been offline due to bitcoin core data corruption, so now I think I'll give another week to see if anything changes
11:23 < HelloShitty> if not, I'll try to change fees again
11:23 <@cdecker> Sounds like a plan 👍
11:23 < HelloShitty> but I think there's not much more I can do other than open more channels to better connected nodes
11:24 < HelloShitty> I have a channel open to Boltz and that channel was already flipped twice
11:24 < HelloShitty> like, I opened that channel and performed a reverse submarine swap with bolts
11:24 < HelloShitty> boltz
11:24 < HelloShitty> so the channel was very close to 50/50
11:25 < HelloShitty> then, all of a sudden, a few days after openning the channel
11:25 < HelloShitty> it consumed all outgoing liquidity and the channel became like 85 or 90% Inbound and the rest Outbound
11:25 <@cdecker> Is the swap worth it? As in are the swap costs less than what you earn forwarding? I've not tried it yet, but I can't really see how that could worth it
11:25 < HelloShitty> then a few days later, the opposite happened
11:26 < HelloShitty> well, it can worth if you (me) knew to set the fees properly right after openning the channel
11:26 < HelloShitty> which I didn't
11:26 <@cdecker> Hehe, right ^^
11:26 < HelloShitty> but I spoke to the guy that takes care of their server
11:27 < HelloShitty> and he told me that he usually forwards something between 50 to 300 payments a month
11:27 < HelloShitty> and he doesn't care about the fees, but he says that it's ok.
11:27 < HelloShitty> He's not getting any fortune but it's pretty reasonable
11:28 < HelloShitty> So, I think that if one gets a node well connected and with balanced liquidity and proper fees
11:28 < HelloShitty> probably yes, it's worth
11:28 < HelloShitty> I know, and everybody knows that those guys at LNBig charges fees like 7k ppm or so
11:29 < HelloShitty> and they have what? Like 15 BTC of liquidity
11:29 < HelloShitty> :0
11:29 <@cdecker> Doesn't really matter if nobody routes through them due to large fees (dunno any details on traffic there tbh)
11:30 <@cdecker> It's more the swaps that I don't think are worth it, since you're paying the swap service and an on-chain tx
11:30 <@cdecker> Don't have any data on that though
11:30 < HelloShitty> true, of course, but I think they are one of te best connected nodes on the entire network, so, probably there are many payments going through their node
11:30 < HelloShitty> ahh yes
11:31 < HelloShitty> when I openened the channel and performed the swap
11:31 < HelloShitty> I set the fees to what I wanted manually, but still it was a bit expensive
11:31 < HelloShitty> mempool was pretty big
11:31 < HelloShitty> and fees were skyrocketting
11:31 < HelloShitty> but in my case, was more for the experience
11:32 < HelloShitty> other than that, I already used the rebalance-plugin a few times
11:32 < HelloShitty> it's cheaper, a lot cheaper, but still if you keep the default fees, you end up spending more in rebalancing than getting fees from forwardings easily
11:33 < HelloShitty> defualt fees, iirc, are base=1000msat and ppm=10
11:33 <@cdecker> Right, I used the rebalance plugin as well, and have spent about 100x my earnings on rebalancings (then again I have been low-balling forwarding fees) xD
11:34 < HelloShitty> I know the goal is to keep the LN with low fees, but to keep up with that, the rebalancing should also be as cheap as forwarding the payments, which is not
11:35 < HelloShitty> yeah, rebalancing must be done after we have some sensing on the fees we already collected
11:35 < HelloShitty> and I have also spent more in rebalancing than with fees collected
11:35 <@cdecker> Yeah, Rene has been proposing a free-rebalancing protocol that'd allow nodes along a rebalance path to use that for free if it's advantageous for everyone
11:35 < HelloShitty> but we are only at the beginning
11:36 < HelloShitty> ahh, that seems great
11:36 <@cdecker> Right, let's see where this experiment gets us :-)
11:36 < HelloShitty> and an huge improvement would be also the dual-channels
11:36 < HelloShitty> I remember you asked volunteers for some testing a few weeks ago
11:36 <@cdecker> Right, I should finalize the paytest plugin and get people testing :-)
11:37 < HelloShitty> I can try to be one but keep in mind that I'm still very fresh with LN and c-lightning, so, I would need loads of support so that I don't mess up
11:37 < HelloShitty> :p
11:37 < HelloShitty> ok, whenever you need, just ping me. I'll do my best to help
11:38 <@cdecker> Don't worry, I can walk you through, but it should be plug-and-play
11:38 <@cdecker> Will do, thanks
11:38 < HelloShitty> I'm also on your telegram channel but under another nickname
11:38 < HelloShitty> When you need, just advertise here or in telegram
11:38 < HelloShitty> I'll be around
11:38 < HelloShitty> and thank you for the time spent
11:38 < HelloShitty> :)
11:38 <@cdecker> Anytime, it helps me as well ^^
11:39 < HelloShitty> o/
13:05 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
13:06 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Client Quit]
13:06 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
13:06 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Client Quit]
13:08 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
13:08 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Client Quit]
13:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.50.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:10 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
13:28 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:38 < t0mix> @niftynei yes, that's what I assumed. thanks for confirm +1
13:39 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has left #c-lightning []
13:39 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has joined #c-lightning
13:40 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
14:19 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen] has joined #c-lightning
14:19 -!- gwollon is now known as gwillen
14:25 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:25 -!- jb551 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #c-lightning
14:27 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Disconnected by services]
14:27 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #c-lightning
14:27 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
14:38 -!- Teoti [~teoti@45.44.153.208] has joined #c-lightning
14:46 -!- rny [~rny@gateway/tor-sasl/renlord] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:46 -!- rny [~rny@gateway/tor-sasl/renlord] has joined #c-lightning
14:49 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:54 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
15:50 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:58 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.173.248.254] has joined #c-lightning
16:32 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #c-lightning
17:49 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
17:58 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #c-lightning
18:00 -!- Teoti [~teoti@45.44.153.208] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:01 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:57 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:58 -!- rh0nj [~rh0nj@88.99.167.175] has joined #c-lightning
21:39 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #c-lightning
21:59 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has left #c-lightning []
21:59 -!- blockstream_bot [blockstrea@gateway/shell/sameroom/x-intqltkmyfgasfjf] has joined #c-lightning
22:09 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has joined #c-lightning
22:25 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
23:33 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:34 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has joined #c-lightning
23:35 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:36 -!- zmnscpxj_ [~zmnscpxj@gateway/tor-sasl/zmnscpxj] has joined #c-lightning
--- Log closed Thu Feb 11 00:00:26 2021