--- Day changed Fri Dec 01 2017 00:04 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@BSN-77-87-226.static.siol.net] has joined #lnd 00:27 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@BSN-77-87-226.static.siol.net] has quit [] 00:50 -!- JackH [~laptop@212.123.9.170] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:33 -!- booyah_ is now known as booyah 01:38 -!- daedal [~daedal@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 01:42 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ecefnwzmykszfbuy] has joined #lnd 01:45 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has joined #lnd 01:48 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:48 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #lnd 02:02 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:03 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #lnd 02:30 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has quit [] 02:39 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:46 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qbgmyjkxesicsqct] has joined #lnd 02:56 -!- daedal [~daedal@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:26 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:26 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has joined #lnd 03:53 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 03:56 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@2601:281:c702:8621:6ca2:2445:f65e:24af] has joined #lnd 04:11 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:56 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qbgmyjkxesicsqct] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 05:31 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd 06:02 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:04 -!- JackH [~laptop@host-80-47-85-226.as13285.net] has joined #lnd 06:24 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:34 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #lnd 06:39 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@2601:281:c702:8621:6ca2:2445:f65e:24af] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:40 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd 08:21 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 08:22 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:22 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 08:46 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has quit [Quit: Laters] 08:47 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has joined #lnd 08:55 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 09:50 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@mail.snyke.net] has left #lnd ["Leaving"] 09:55 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 10:43 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Quit: .] 10:48 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd 11:24 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 11:25 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:25 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 11:27 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:33 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 11:35 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:59 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 12:03 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vgzeaoytvyaqvdcr] has joined #lnd 12:05 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@2601:281:c702:8621:6ca2:2445:f65e:24af] has joined #lnd 12:33 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has joined #lnd 13:59 -!- booyah is now known as SoCo_cpp___ 13:59 -!- SoCo_cpp___ is now known as booyah 14:00 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:10 -!- alt0id_ is now known as alt0id 14:55 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has joined #lnd 15:03 -!- rabidus is now known as jonuzeioohomo 15:03 -!- jonuzeioohomo is now known as rabidus 15:39 -!- kevkevin [43ba4539@gateway/web/freenode/ip.67.186.69.57] has joined #lnd 15:41 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:49 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd 16:33 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vgzeaoytvyaqvdcr] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 17:09 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ecefnwzmykszfbuy] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 17:13 < stevenroose> Updated my node. Going nuts on syncing :) 17:14 -!- Styils [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd 17:17 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 17:20 < stevenroose> Look at this beauty as a result: https://stevenroose.github.io/lightninggraph/ 17:21 < garit> Does NL has ability to send coins between channels? 17:23 < stevenroose> garit: what do you mean exactly? 17:24 < garit> When A has a channel with person B, and also A has a channel with person C, can person A send money from channel AB to channel AC without the blockchain? 17:25 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@2601:281:c702:8621:6ca2:2445:f65e:24af] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 17:28 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd 17:36 < stevenroose> garit: hmm, depends on the network 17:36 < stevenroose> but very likely yes 17:37 -!- lxer [~lx@95.91.213.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 17:37 < stevenroose> A would send money to B by not allowing a path that uses AB, so he would send over a channel AC -> CX -> ... -> YB 17:37 < garit> Ok. Now lets say we have AB, AC, AD channels. And i want to double spend from AB to AD and AC. How system will stop this? 17:38 < stevenroose> Correction 17:39 < stevenroose> A would send money to himself by not allowing a simple payment over only AB, so he would send over a channel AC -> CX -> ... -> YB -> AB 17:40 < stevenroose> To send from AB to AC and AD, you'd have to make paths that both use AB 17:40 < stevenroose> So peer B would see that you are making two payments at the time. 17:40 < stevenroose> So spending all you have twice, he won't allow 17:41 < stevenroose> Basically to pay AD from AB, like I said before, you make a payment path over a series of channels that start with AB en ends with DA (==AD) 17:42 < stevenroose> So to setup the payment over the first channel in the path (AB), you would contact B and propose the payment. 17:42 < garit> so you have to find working loop of channels . Before that, having only AB Ad AC its impossible 17:42 < stevenroose> If you do that twice for the same payment, B would of course not allow you to 17:42 < garit> and if any of the channels, like YB is offline, tx wont go. Right? 17:42 < stevenroose> Yes. But in a rather connected graph, it's pretty likely that your peers B and C can reach each other without you 17:42 < stevenroose> Yes 17:43 < garit> Which is basically a web of trust now 17:43 < stevenroose> If YB is offline, you'd use ZB 17:43 < stevenroose> There is no trust at all 17:43 < garit> There is a btc reserve for trust 17:44 < garit> but i got your idea, thanks 17:44 < stevenroose> Payments over channels don't require any trust. When someone proposes to make a payment with you as an intermediary, you only agree to payment after you know that another equivalent payment comes towards you with a lower locktime. So you have a guarantee that you will not lose the money. 17:44 < stevenroose> In fact, if you are online, you are more likely to make money than to lose it. 17:44 < garit> Or i can demand a fee and reject otherwise 17:45 < stevenroose> Yeah you could demand a fee, but still only do so when the incoming locktime is lower than the outgoing one 17:45 < stevenroose> Because otherwise you're at risk 17:45 < garit> At what risk? 17:45 < stevenroose> Of losing the money in the payment. 17:46 < stevenroose> If you are an intermediate node, you always have an incoming and an outgoing channel payment. 17:46 < garit> if im Y - i dont risk losing money 17:46 < stevenroose> Apart from the amounts being slightly different for you to make some money, you always make sure that the enforcement deadline of the incoming payment is BEFORE the enforcement deadline of the outgoing payment. 17:47 < stevenroose> So that if the incoming payment doesn't arrive (party offline or malicious), you can cancel the outgoig one. 17:47 < garit> And what will happen after the deadline? Lets assume Y is the only party that can make the loop for now 17:47 < garit> Y wont lose money if A cancels payment 17:47 < stevenroose> Let's say A -AB-> B -BC-> C 17:47 < stevenroose> And you are B 17:48 < stevenroose> sSo A is paying you over AB and you are paying a bit less to C over BC 17:48 < garit> Okay, B won't lose money if it demands A to pay fee and rejects to continue 17:48 < stevenroose> You have to make sure that if A doesn't send, you can cancel the payment to C 17:48 < stevenroose> So the deadline for AB needs to be earlier than the one for BC 17:49 < garit> i, as B, simply wont make BC payment until A accepts to pay a large fee 17:49 < stevenroose> And in that case, there is no way you can lose money. Except when you go offline for a significant time 17:49 < stevenroose> garit: the fee doesn't matter at all 17:51 < garit> anyway. At this point it seems people may sabotage payments by pretending to be offline until they see enough fee to act 17:51 < stevenroose> garit: there is no incentive to do that 17:51 < stevenroose> First of all, if you are offline, you won't get any fee proposals :p 17:51 < garit> Can B ask A ro pay a fee for B's work? 17:52 < stevenroose> Second of all, the fee doesn't have any impact on the risk of losing money. Your uptime is the only significant factor there. 17:52 < stevenroose> B can advertise the fee he wants for payments routed through him, yes. 17:52 < garit> then i have the incentive to only work with large fees 17:52 < garit> and i can ban people i don't like 17:52 < stevenroose> But if B's fee is too high, A will pay C through another of his channels 17:53 < garit> if another channel exist . That may bot be the case 17:53 < stevenroose> B has an incentive to make money out of his channels 17:53 < garit> s/bot/not/ 17:53 < stevenroose> Blocking a channel from being useful is as bad for B as it is for A 17:53 < garit> unless blockage for low fees makes average fee go higher 17:54 < stevenroose> Because either there is money being unused, or you have to close it and it will cost a blockchain fee. 17:54 < stevenroose> garit: well, yeah of course there will be a market for fees. But it still doesn't make sense to go black until the fees are high enough. You can just set a high fee as your parameter and your peers will know what your rate is. 17:55 < garit> Yes, or this 17:55 < garit> Also. 17:55 < garit> what is a channel average life time do you expect? 18:06 < stevenroose> Long. 18:07 < stevenroose> Adding and removing funds would cost one blockchain tx, so even if you need the money for something else, using money from a channel would cost approx the same as using your traditional bitcoin wallet (1 x tx fee) 18:07 < stevenroose> So there is not really a reason not to have the money in channels up to the amount you are comfortable with (you not-cold wallet part) 18:08 < stevenroose> garit: So I guess would totally depend on the uptime of your counterparty. Since I think most channels will be maintained by some kind of service provider anyway, that means probably very long-lived channels. 18:09 < stevenroose> The only aspect of the LN that for me is not yet proven is whether or not the connectivity will be sufficient to support payments between any two nodes. It's hard to predict/simulate. 18:10 < stevenroose> If that works out like we hope/expect, your "lightnint wallet", i.e. the money you have available in all your channels together, would be your new "bitcoin wallet" for small payments normal day-to-day spending 18:11 < garit> stevenroose: lets say 1 week channels. And 10 channels per node on average. And million users. 10 millions channels. this is already x4 from current btc network capacity 18:11 -!- andrelam [~andrelam@179.223.105.169] has joined #lnd 18:12 < stevenroose> garit: when I say long times, I mean more like years than weeks 18:13 < stevenroose> The channels with good peers would stay and maybe once or twice a year you'd have to form a new one. 18:13 < stevenroose> It's pure speculation of course. 18:13 < stevenroose> But there is really no theoretical need for 1-week channels 18:14 < stevenroose> garit: let's hope we get more than a million users ;) 18:16 -!- andrelam [~andrelam@179.223.105.169] has quit [Client Quit] 18:17 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:17 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 18:23 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:23 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 18:37 < garit> Can i make LN fork without it ties to a bitcoin? So that LN is everything there is. Was therr any attempts to do so? 18:44 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-klpytkwwbvougtco] has joined #lnd 19:34 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef closed pull request #439: multi: retain original copyright on files copied/modified from btcsuite (master...copy-right) https://git.io/vbfu1 19:50 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd 20:31 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:38 -!- daedal [~daedal@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 20:41 -!- daedal [~daedal@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit] 20:42 -!- daedalus [~daedalus@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 20:42 -!- daedalus is now known as edk 20:42 -!- edk is now known as edke 21:03 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-klpytkwwbvougtco] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 21:41 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 21:47 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:13 -!- edke [~daedalus@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 22:13 -!- edke [~edke@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 22:14 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:15 -!- edke [~edke@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit] 22:15 -!- edke [~edke@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd 22:41 -!- Styils is now known as Styil 23:07 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 23:13 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd 23:13 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd 23:24 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has joined #lnd 23:35 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:35 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd