--- Day changed Fri Dec 08 2017
00:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
00:41 -!- lxer [~lx@ip5f5bd55d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #lnd     
00:46 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd     
01:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
01:18 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:18 -!- interfect[m] [interfectm@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-gobrzqojpeidtskc] has joined #lnd     
01:19 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
01:27 -!- cjd[m] [cdelisle1@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-viatjnkwkhokphuv] has joined #lnd     
01:27 -!- afdudley [afdudleyma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-ukxzzbwaukoaftey] has joined #lnd     
01:27 -!- georgeangel[m] [georgeange@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-wzqewlyhlkjtorya] has joined #lnd     
01:27 -!- shem[m] [shemmatrix@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-sutjbmmfkiluaobg] has joined #lnd     
02:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
02:19 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:20 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
02:24 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
02:55 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@BSN-77-87-226.static.siol.net] has joined #lnd     
03:03 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mvoxvhrfzhthjkdg] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
03:21 -!- johanth [uid223041@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-donidmycrvtxuitr] has joined #lnd     
03:23 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nmqovhgjrkkrgywf] has joined #lnd     
03:25 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:26 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
04:04 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
04:05 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
04:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
04:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
04:08 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd     
04:38 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
04:38 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
04:38 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]     
04:38 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]     
04:38 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd     
04:39 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
04:40 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #lnd     
04:47 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
04:47 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #lnd     
05:05 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
05:33 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nmqovhgjrkkrgywf] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
05:46 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:13 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
06:34 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@BSN-77-87-226.static.siol.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
06:39 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
06:40 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:40 -!- zshlyk is now known as intcat     
07:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:07 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
07:20 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:21 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
07:33 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #lnd     
07:40 -!- rhavar_ [uid237883@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jjtzlibnnzjvtivj] has joined #lnd     
08:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:04 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
08:10 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:11 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
08:14 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-emsjvytwfpopxdgo] has joined #lnd     
08:14 -!- ekeller [59e1fdda@gateway/web/freenode/ip.89.225.253.218] has joined #lnd     
08:15 -!- ekeller [59e1fdda@gateway/web/freenode/ip.89.225.253.218] has left #lnd []     
08:45 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has joined #lnd     
08:53 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has joined #lnd     
09:03 -!- mrcheap [82c11887@gateway/web/freenode/ip.130.193.24.135] has joined #lnd     
09:08 -!- mrcheap [82c11887@gateway/web/freenode/ip.130.193.24.135] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
09:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:15 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
09:15 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has quit []     
09:25 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:26 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
09:27 < Provoostenator> It would be nice to have list of known reliable testnet nodes. I was able to use Y'alls once yesterday, but no longer. I'm also craving for a Blockaccino, but no luck. Usually I get  "unable to route payment to destination: UnknownNextPeer", despite having 9 channels.
09:28 < Provoostenator> I can just keep opening more, but that feels a bit random.
09:28 -!- eamonnw [~eamonnw@iceland.sdf.org] has joined #lnd     
09:32 < Provoostenator> One of my channels is with the node listed on faucet.lightning.community.
09:42 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd     
10:01 -!- rhavar_ [uid237883@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jjtzlibnnzjvtivj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
10:10 < sovjet> hmm L14dy on reddit wrote some explanation of this lightning thing
10:10 < sovjet> interesting
10:17 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:18 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
10:25 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:26 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
10:29 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:37 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
10:37 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
10:37 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
10:39 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has joined #lnd     
10:42 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd     
10:47 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
10:48 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:49 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
10:49 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #lnd     
10:51 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd     
10:52 <@roasbeef> heh jsut realized I had starblocks packets blocked on the faucet's firewall
10:52 <@roasbeef> fixed now
10:52 <@roasbeef> hmm what happend to the commit bot
10:54 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:57 < Provoostenator> @roasbeef: that did the trick! Enjoying my Blockaccino now, tastes better when purchased with testnet.
10:58 < Provoostenator> Y'alls doesn't work for me though.
10:58 < Provoostenator> "unable to find a path to destination"
10:59 <@roasbeef> i think they're upgrading their instance
11:04 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: sup
11:04 -!- dymurray [dymurray@nat/redhat/x-omhjxivbhnysnflk] has joined #lnd     
11:04 < rafalcpp> Im discussing with some missguided bcashers a bit, and a question arised
11:04 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd     
11:04 < rafalcpp> "all forwarding of money there [in LN] is atomic and you at all times have all the keys alowing you to exit with the last account ballance to which you agreed - therefore we can say that LN is as secure as L1, because you can always exit it via L1"  (secure in terms of miners cartel blocking you etc)
11:05 < rafalcpp> is this correct?
11:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
11:06 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:07 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd     
11:07 < dymurray> More distinctly rafalcpp is curious if LN is vulnerable to a sybil attack? Would love to hear peoples thoughts
11:07 < rafalcpp> also, there is some claim that LN is vulnereable "to sybill" somehow, lol. Any idea what it is about
11:07 < rafalcpp> dymurray: I do not care bout L2 being somehow blocked with "sybil" (lol), when I can exit via L1
11:07 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:07 < rafalcpp> dymurray: but yeah tell us how sybil" would work inside LN.  ok you made 10000 nodes, and I connected to them. what now
11:08 < dymurray> I'm not arguing with what you're comfortable with... I'm simply stating that LN is mathematically proven to be vulnerable to a sybil attack
11:08 < rafalcpp> what this will accomplish, at what cost, and how
11:08 < rafalcpp> dymurray: same question
11:08 < dymurray> rafalcpp, you don't know what a sybil attack and I have better uses of my time than explaining it to you. Its on wikipedia.
11:09 < Provoostenator> What does the  pending_htlcs  entry mean?
11:09 < rafalcpp> dymurray: BCH please, Im using, admining and developing p2p networks before bitcoin was created. shove up patronizing tone up yours.org, and instead tell us:
11:09 < rafalcpp> dymurray: what this will accomplish, at what cost, and how
11:10 -!- sh_smith [~sh_smith@cpe-76-174-26-91.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd     
11:11 < rafalcpp> dymurray: maybe tell the LN developers here, how LN can be sybilled, at what cost, and how
11:11 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
11:12 < Provoostenator> My channel with the y'alls node had 5 pending_htlcs entries open and why tried to close it, the command just blocked. However now that channel is gone, so that's good.
11:14 <@roasbeef> dymurray: lol "mathematically proven"?
11:15 <@roasbeef> plz don't listen to faketoshi
11:15 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: I am not worthy of bcashers telling me how the sybil would work :'(  maybe then can tell you
11:16 <@roasbeef> rafalcpp: security of channels depend on the securituy and censorship resistant properties of the base chain, the additional security assumption is one of chain availability, tho there's the scortched earth game which further disinceitvies any potential channel breaches
11:16 <@roasbeef> do to onto the network you need to open channels
11:16 <@roasbeef> bitcoin is a global rate limiting system
11:17 < Provoostenator> I find it better to read to CJW's transcripts, so it's more obvious it's complete gibberish. He just knows which words to use and which emotional buttons to push, which doesn't require any knowledge of how things actually work.
11:17 <@roasbeef> dymurray: explain this purported sybil attack?
11:17 < dymurray> roasbeef, avg hop length in the LN is > 10 and has been observed as high as 18
11:17 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: yeap, just as I thought.  Do you know which kinds of lies faketoshi placed into dymurray's mind regarding "the sybilllll"?   wtf would even a sybil do in LN?  seems at most it would make it unusalbe (and you still just exit via L1 with last ballance)
11:17 < dymurray> roasbeef, thats mathematically always proven in graph theory to be vulnerable to a sybil attakc
11:17 <@roasbeef> dymurray: less technobabble please, what avg hop length?
11:18 < dymurray> roasbeef, "less technobabble" thats discrete math 101
11:18 <@roasbeef> dymurray: you just jumped to a conclusion without any sort of argument in between
11:18 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: lul I spent 20 minutes getting out of him. He means node to miner distance.
11:18 < dymurray> roasbeef, I'm sorry I've been arguing for 2 hours with rafalcpp
11:18 <@roasbeef> miner distance?
11:18 <@roasbeef> dymurray: where are you drawing these metrics from?
11:18 < rafalcpp> or something, he's babbling.  anyway you discuss, I will just watch
11:18 < dymurray> hop length for tx from starting node to being confirmed on L1
11:18 <@roasbeef> being confirmed one L1, is just a confirmed transaction
11:18 <@roasbeef> there's no "hops" there
11:19 < dymurray> roasbeef, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.2626.pdf rafalcpp
11:19 < dymurray> Heres the paper
11:19 <@roasbeef> that paper has *nothing* to do with LN
11:19 < dymurray> lol okay
11:19 <@roasbeef> it's about information propagation in the bitcoin gossip network
11:19 <@roasbeef> have you read it?
11:19 < dymurray> Yes I sure have
11:19 <@roasbeef> it's that miners have an incentize to not propagate txns they find to other nodes
11:20 <@roasbeef> it has no bearing to LN at all
11:20 < dymurray> Theorem: Suppose that H ≥ 3. There is no Sybil-proof reward scheme in which information
11:20 < dymurray> propagation and no duplication are dominant strategy for all nodes at depth 3
11:20 < dymurray> or less.
11:20 < dymurray> Related Work. The paper describing Bitcoin’s principles was originally published as
11:20 < dymurray> Theres the theorem showing that if H>3 than its vulnerable
11:21 -!- AndyS2 [~noname@static.74.88.9.5.clients.your-server.de] has joined #lnd     
11:21 <@roasbeef> this is about withholding transaction generation information on the network as they have an incentize to not tell others
11:21 < dymurray> roasbeef, exactly
11:21 <@roasbeef> as if they do, they may lose out on transction fees
11:21 < Provoostenator> dymurray: are you CSW?
11:22 < dymurray> Provoostenator, LOL nope I wish
11:22 <@roasbeef> there's nothing about LN in this at all, not even related
11:22 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator: he thinks actually that CSW is satoshi.
11:22 < Provoostenator> You sound similar.
11:22 <@roasbeef> it's about miner incentives
11:22 <@roasbeef> dymurray: I recommend you actually read the paper
11:23 <@roasbeef> the core issue the paper examines: A node in the network has an
11:23 <@roasbeef> incentive to keep the knowledge of any transaction that offers a fee to itself, as any
11:23 <@roasbeef> other node that becomes aware of the transaction will compete to authorize first and
11:23 <@roasbeef> claim the associated fee. For example, if only a single node is aware of a transaction, it
11:23 <@roasbeef> can eliminate competition altogether by not distributing information further
11:23 <@roasbeef> it's transaction withholding
11:23 <@roasbeef> miners have no incentize to actually relay transactions to other nodes
11:23 < dymurray> roasbeef, right, so a mining cartel could overtake LN true or false?
11:23 < dymurray> if they act against incentive
11:23 <@roasbeef> it argues that they'll consolidate and just create private transaction broadcast mechanisms directly to them, as then they're guraanteed the transaction fees for those transactions
11:23 <@roasbeef> no     
11:23 <@roasbeef> false
11:24 < dymurray> how? you're saying that the reason its secure is that miners have no incentive? destroying the network is incentive enough
11:25 <@roasbeef> dymurray: incentive to do what? how do they "overtake" LN?
11:25 <@roasbeef> please dont listen to faketoshi, he's a lier and manipulator, he likes to cite thigs lke this from papers *totally* out of context
11:25 -!- MaxSan [~user@185.156.175.59] has joined #lnd     
11:26 <@roasbeef> the paper just argues that pool operators have a strong incentize to not propagate transactions, and just accept them directly from customers
11:26 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:26 < dymurray> roasbeef, https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 I recommend reading that
11:26 < rafalcpp> xd     
11:27 <@roasbeef> lol "mathematical proof"
11:27 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
11:27 < rafalcpp> every fucking on read that bullshit, dymurray, and we know it's lies and bulshit because they do hand waving and then jump to conclusions on UNRELATED TOPICS
11:27 <@roasbeef> sure anyone can create an invalid model, plug in some assumptions and reach any conclusion
11:27 <@roasbeef> "jonald" has no idea how channels even work
11:27 < rafalcpp> melting point of water is ~0 C.... THEREFORE !  LN is insecure
11:28 < rafalcpp> buy BCH before it's too late
11:28 < dymurray> roasbeef, what's your problem with how he defines channels?
11:29 -!- Oschi [~userid@unaffiliated/pril] has joined #lnd     
11:33 < Provoostenator> "But, probably only one of these channels will reach the intended recipient at any given time" - this is nonsense, the network is much more interconnected.
11:33 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-axoltvfeqblrytnm] has joined #lnd     
11:33 <@roasbeef> he assumes users only have a single channel ever, he assumes users don't preemptily create channels, he assumes no one receives money over channels, he assumes a tree toplogy with one central node at the root, most of the probability calcs are just massilvey off base, he assumes the graph isn't well connected
11:33 <@roasbeef> it's just nonense, don't have time to debunk all this bullshit
11:34 <@roasbeef> you can end at any sort of conclusion, given a sufficiently borked starting model
11:34 < Provoostenator> Most likely *all* your outgoing channels will reach all nodes in the network. You just need redudancy in case one goes down or gets too expensive. And there's a recent paper about having some multisig to move funds between channels that should help there.
11:34 <@roasbeef> just because someone has some math formulas on a blog post, doesn't mean their earnest or correct
11:35 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator: is this about reachinig recipient over LN?  it must go through LN hubs used to form given connection right?
11:35 < dymurray> But the point is that you can't control what other nodes do... its no longer trustless
11:35 < dymurray> you're introducing a double ledger system on top of a triple ledger system
11:35 < dymurray> Its glorified banking
11:35 < aakselrod> "What People Think LN Should Look Like (Not Possible!)"
11:35 < aakselrod> best diagram evar
11:35 < aakselrod> much evidence
11:36 < aakselrod> so validity
11:36 < Provoostenator> dymurray:  "its no longer trustless" does not in any way follow from  "you can't control what other nodes do..."
11:37 < Provoostenator> If it did, then Bitcoin wouldn't be trustless, because I can't control any other node in the network.
11:37 < dymurray> Because you could create a mining cartel if you're so incentivized to tank BTC
11:37 < AndyS2> dymurray: but the 'banks' don't have my money. I have my money
11:38 < Provoostenator> dymurray: are you trying to prove a point? If so, what point? Or are you trying to learn something. If so, what?
11:38 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator: he tries to prove that LN is insecure
11:38 < rafalcpp> "because sybil"
11:38 < Provoostenator> That's too vague.
11:38 < dymurray> Provoostenator, I'm trying to get a serious response to the possibility of LN being vulnerable in L2 to a sybil attack
11:38 < dymurray> rafalcpp, keeps trolling
11:38 < Provoostenator> Too vague
11:38 < dymurray> how too vague?
11:38 < rafalcpp> I keep showing him how is wrong, so I am "trolling" :)
11:38 < dymurray> a network either is or isn't vulnerable to a sybil attack
11:39 < Provoostenator> Because the sentence doesn't mean anything.
11:39 < dymurray> We can prove if avg hop length is greater than 3 in any network
11:39 < dymurray> its vulnerable to sybil attacks
11:39 < dymurray> whats avg hop length in LN?
11:39 < Provoostenator> Lighting *is* L2, so "LN being vulnerable in L2" is a meaningless statement like "water boils in water"
11:39 < rafalcpp> dymurray: asking you for 5th time:  what that sybil would accomplish? at what cost? how?
11:39 < dymurray> Provoostenator, because rafalcpp keeps saying you can exit to L1 so it makes it a moot point
11:40 < dymurray> which is a stupid statement anyway
11:40 < dymurray> If anyone could tell me what the avg hop length on LN then I would be happy
11:40 < rafalcpp> LN pariticpants can always exist (with on-chain transaction) and retain their last valid ballance, is that so?  (not 100% sure how much they must wait there)
11:40 < Provoostenator> You can't be wrong or right without clear and falsifyable claims.
11:41 < rafalcpp> LN pariticpants can always exit    (with on-chain transaction) and retain their last valid ballance that they had transated on LN,  even if any part of LN is blocked or not coopearting etc.  Is that so?  (though not 100% sure how much they must wait there)
11:41 < Provoostenator> dymurray: You need to improve your question, probably by doing more reading, e.g. starting with Andreas Antonopolous Mastering Bitcoin.
11:42 < dymurray> Provoostenator, No. My question is sound. In basic graph theory every network has an avg edge distance and hence a correlated avg hop length. What are those numbers on LN? I feel like thats a fair question and if its not tell me why
11:42 < Provoostenator> Until then, I suggest simply not using Lightning if you feel unconfortable with it. Don't trust, verify.
11:44 < dymurray> Provoostenator, everytime I ask this question I hear crickets
11:44 < dymurray> Has noone simuated the proposed netowork? did they run any metrics on it?
11:44 < dymurray> I'm required to do this before I roll anything out into production
11:44 < Provoostenator> My answer is sound, because Newton's gravitation law says mass is moon.
11:45 < Provoostenator> Simulate it yourself.
11:46 < rafalcpp> dymurray: we all hear crickets when it's asked what would that "sybil" do in LN.  can you define it at all?
11:46 < rafalcpp> in your "question"
11:46 < dymurray> I'm telling you that people have... and I would be happy to do it myself. Its shocking to me that people who are proposing this as the say all solution to bitcoin haven't tested this and usually don't even know what I'm talking about
11:46 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
11:46 < dymurray> rafalcpp, a "sybil" is not a thing. Its a type of attack on computer networks
11:47 < Provoostenator> dymurray: so then you *are* CSW?
11:47 < rafalcpp> dymurray: everyone knows what you mean about graphs being more or less direectly connected, and you sound like totall prick constantly saying only you one know what it means
11:47 < Provoostenator> Or his twin
11:47 < rafalcpp> dymurray: can you fucking say what this sybil would do, at what cost, and what it can accomplish?
11:47 < dymurray> Noones answering my question. I don't pretend to know more than you guys
11:47 < dymurray> rafalcpp, what is "it"???
11:47 < dymurray> You aren't understanding
11:48 < dymurray> a mining cartel could control the network
11:48 < rafalcpp> dymurray: the fucking "sybill attack" that you claim is possible to do on LightningNetwork
11:48 < dymurray> overwrite tx data
11:48 < dymurray> write a new chain
11:48 < dymurray> same end results as a 51% attack
11:48 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd     
11:49 < rafalcpp> ok no such things is possible in LN because  "re overwrite tx data" - all txes are signed, no amount of other fake nodes popping up can sign something to what you have the privkey.  and re "write a new chain" - there is no chain in LN.  and if they can attack BTC chain (or BCH), then LN doesn't change anything as they can do that anyway then, with or without LN.
11:49 < Provoostenator> @roasbeef: are you logging this channel? Would be nice to have BotBot integration.
11:49 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator is my understanding of LN security in above 2 areas correct?
11:50 < Provoostenator> rafalcpp: I'm not an expert, but your first statement is certainly correct.
11:50 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: can you confirm?
11:51 < Provoostenator> You can selectively leave out transactions and reorder, etc.
11:51 < dymurray> rafalcpp, once they control L2 they can write to L1
11:51 < Provoostenator> But you can't make up new ones
11:51 < dymurray> as long as they own the miners
11:51 < dymurray> AKA mining cartel
11:51 < rafalcpp>  /r/btc and few other disinformation places pump such FUD each day, so it would be nice to do a FAQ regarding this FUD.  perhaps dymurray is not a paid shill, but just someone missinformed by CSW et al, and so are more users too (around 10% by market size, roughly)
11:51 < dymurray> You can laugh at CSW all you want that's why he makes this point
11:51 < Provoostenator> BCH is irrelevant without SegWit it's not going to have Lightning anytime soon.
11:51 < dymurray> don't call me FUD rafalcpp
11:52 < dymurray> You guys haven't negated anything I've brought up as a valid concern. And I apologize for getting testy but rafalcpp has been calling me mentally insane for the past hour
11:52 < dymurray> I have those logs saved.
11:52 < rafalcpp> dymurray: quick question: who is Satoshi?
11:52  * rafalcpp prepares drums
11:52 < Provoostenator> If someone 51% attacks and re-orgs the chain all the way to before the moment the channel was openen, that's obviously a problem. Not more so than with regular bitcoin transactions probably.
11:52 < dymurray> rafalcpp, My belief is that it is Craig Wright. I could be wrong.
11:52  * rafalcpp ta-dum-tsssh!
11:53 < Provoostenator> rafalcpp: no, I think he *is* CSW.
11:53 < aakselrod> Provoostenator: they can undo the channel opening tx, but they can't *change* it to a different tx.
11:53 < aakselrod> they don't have the keys.
11:54 < rafalcpp> <dymurray> You guys haven't negated anything I've brought up as a valid concern.
11:54 < rafalcpp> dymurray: but we (both) just replied to concern #1
11:54 < rafalcpp> <dymurray> overwrite tx data
11:54 < Provoostenator> aakselrod: correct
11:54 < rafalcpp> impossible since no one (even cartel of miners) do not have your priv keys
11:54 < dymurray> Provoostenator, aakselrod if they undo it they can write a new chain
11:54 < dymurray> a chain split
11:54 < rafalcpp> oh, if you mean overwrite txes, as in make them not happen,  then it is possible - but it is equally possible on L1 and on LN.
11:55 < aakselrod> they can write a new chain that doesn't include some transactions, but they can't make new transactions come from you.
11:55 < dymurray> aakselrod, no of course not
11:55 < dymurray> I'm more concerned with the network
11:55 < rafalcpp> dymurray: btw you know, opening a chan should require few confirmations.  and closing should be done like 50 blocks before it expires
11:55 < dymurray> not individual users
11:55 < aakselrod> so they can undo channel opening transactions (which can be re-confirmed later, BTW)
11:55 < dymurray> We are rehasing all L1 attacks... I'm talking specifically LN
11:56 < aakselrod> but that attack is *least* likely on bitcoin, due to the massive amounts of money the miners would lose trying to do it
11:56 < dymurray> I asked quetions about the network metrics
11:56 < dymurray> and got no response
11:56 < aakselrod> the network metrics in LN have *nothing* to do with the red balloon paper
11:56 < rafalcpp> dymurray: there are no miners in LN
11:56 < aakselrod> the sybil attack the red balloon paper is talking about is essentially information withholding
11:56 < dymurray> rafalcpp, no of course not. But if a mining cartel overtakes L2 then they can perform a chain split on L1
11:56 < aakselrod> which is about propagating on-chain transactions
11:56 < rafalcpp> dymurray: only miners (and threfore  miner-related cartel attacks) happens when entering, and exiting LN.  and that is equally the same as just attacking any non-LN transactions on chain...  why you think LN somehow is more vulnerable?
11:57 < rafalcpp> dymurray: how would miner cartel "overtake" L2, what does it mean?
11:57 < dymurray> Because LN has this problem:
11:57 < rafalcpp> block 1000: me + aakselrod lock 5+5 BTC in LN chan, expiration=block 2000
11:57 < dymurray> dymurray> We can prove if avg hop length is greater than 3 in any network
11:57 < dymurray> <dymurray> its vulnerable to sybil attacks
11:57 < dymurray> <dymurray> whats avg hop length in LN?
11:57 < dymurray> Noone has responded to that
11:58 < rafalcpp> dymurray: but that attack with miners happens in L1, that has the same properties as main net, because it is the main net
11:58 -!- [a]akselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd     
11:58 < dymurray> rafalcpp, mainnet has avg hop length < 3
11:58 < rafalcpp> how are you not getting this after 3 peopel told you lol maybe you can understand on example
11:58 < dymurray> so not equivalent
11:58 < dymurray> which you said was NOT true earlier
11:58 < [a]akselrod> dymurray: i *just* responded to that
11:58  * rafalcpp sighs
11:58 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: please, maybe you
11:59 < [a]akselrod> LN's hop length is NOT AT ALL equivalent to the hop length between nodes in the bitcoin p2p network
11:59 < rafalcpp> dymurray: ^^^^^^
11:59 < dymurray> aakselrod, is LN a p2p network?
11:59 < dymurray> That theorem describes ALL p2p networks
11:59  * rafalcpp gouges his eyes out
12:00 < dymurray> LOL you guys don't know basic network theory
12:00 < dymurray> this is ridiculous
12:00 < rafalcpp> :D     
12:00 < dymurray> you can easily simulate a network and get these metrics
12:00 < dymurray> why doesn't that exist?
12:00 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: maybe you? please, we need to find antidote to minds poisoned with CJS manipulations
12:00 < [a]akselrod> if you can easily do it, do it :)
12:00 < dymurray> any p2p network can be simulated and loged
12:01 < [a]akselrod> we have dockerized lnd, do a simulation
12:01 < [a]akselrod> prove your case
12:01 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
12:01 < dymurray> aakselrod, okay I will
12:01 < dymurray> wheres the repo?
12:01 < dymurray> on dockerhub?
12:01 < [a]akselrod> it's in the channel topic
12:01 < dymurray> Thank you!
12:01 < rafalcpp> [a]akselrod: I think he is missing more important point, that any such problems [resulting in blocking] inside of LN, are irrevelant, because users can always finish (close channel) on L1 if L2 would be blocked somehow. is that so?
12:02 < [a]akselrod> dymurray: we look forward to seeing the results of your simulation!
12:02 -!- [a]akselrod is now known as aakselrod     
12:02 < dymurray> Can't believe the people developing lightning haven't already published this
12:02 < dymurray> it would be required before I even started an alpha project
12:03 < aakselrod> you should make sure you're doing it with autopilot on, because that's the current heuristic for establishing new channels
12:03 < aakselrod> and use simnet, so you can cause reorgs easily
12:03 < aakselrod> and then see in what ways you can break it
12:03 < rafalcpp> is this correct? because then we can reason about minimal LN security guaratees, without researching (and convincing everyone!) the details of L2 txes
12:04 < dymurray> aakselrod, thank you for the tips. Will take me a few days more than likely if I don't get swamped on my other projects. I'm very curious to see myself
12:04 < aakselrod> dymurray: i'm curious to see your results. if they show issues we can fix, we'll be glad to fix them.
12:05 < Provoostenator> aakselrod: I don't think you can get a realistic topology in a simulation. So a model probably can't prove too much about security in either direction.
12:05 < aakselrod> Provoostenator: that depends on the methodology and scale
12:05 < Provoostenator> Though I suppose you could try to create a worst case, with something ridiculous like the tree graph in that blog, and then show even *that* is safe.
12:05 < aakselrod> but random back-of-napkin calculations aren't the same as simulations running the actual LN code
12:05 < rafalcpp> is it true that minimal security of LN is that the funds that you received on it, are as secure as on main-net, provided that you start closing the channel early enough to get the mainnet transaction in time?
12:06 < aakselrod> rafalcpp: yes, provided you are watching the chain (or using a watchtower, coming soon) to respond to any potential breaches, your funds are as secure as on-chain
12:06 < Provoostenator> rafalcpp: maybe not if someone pays you on the channel during a DDOS on mainnet where you can't close it
12:07 < Provoostenator> But maybe that's why the exit fees need to be adjusted while the channel is open.
12:07 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator: yeah that is what I ment by early enough.  Anyway, can you set the txfee at time of closing, or only at time of opening?  (but either way you can CPFP it right?)
12:07 < rafalcpp> dymurray: ^^^^ that was my point regarding "this is all irrevelant because you can always exit via L1"
12:07 < aakselrod> you can CPFP it (that's the scorched earth method roasbeef was talking about)
12:08 < Provoostenator> You can't CPFP if all the miners collude against you of course.
12:08 < aakselrod> the punishment tx takes *all* the money, and you can CPFP all the way up to 100% of the funds if necessary
12:08 < rafalcpp> Provoostenator: indeed. but same is true on L1 "regular" main net isn't it
12:08 < aakselrod> right, but then bitcoin as a whole has a different problem
12:08 < Provoostenator> Right, why bother attacking some random bloke on a channel...
12:08 < dymurray> rafalcpp, but then you're relegating the thing that makes bitcoin secure to being a failsafe from the main network (L2 handling a ton of transactions with low conf times) still needs to be secure
12:09 < rafalcpp> dymurray: but it's only the worst case scenario
12:09 < rafalcpp> dymurray: in normal mode, you do 1000000s of txes "for free" (plus possible profit as set by free market)
12:09 < dymurray> which is exactly what we should be evaluating when developing a network
12:09 < Provoostenator> You probably want to have a long timeout, so this gets really epensive.
12:10 < rafalcpp> dymurray: my point was that L2 is as secure as L1 in worst case.  yes, in worst case it is as secure as L1 by being as expensive (or maybe even a bit more) then L1.
12:10 < Provoostenator> Like if you have 1 year to redeem, good luck sustaining your 51% attack that long.
12:10 < rafalcpp> another point is how often we will get the good scenario, that is your hub not being hostile.  With some reputation building (as even bitcoind core does with peers.dat) I hope it will be 99% of cases. maybe 80% if in beginning people attack it out of spite with cancer-nodes
12:10 < rafalcpp> cancer-hubs
12:11 < aakselrod> there are no hubs in LN, and "cancer nodes" cost a lot of money - trying to grief people using LN gets as expensive (though at lower granularity) as 51% attacks
12:11 < aakselrod> nobody cares about your node until you've got money committed to a channel
12:14 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has quit [Quit: Laters]     
12:14 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:15 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
12:15 -!- Tootoot222 [~Toot@unaffiliated/toottoot222] has joined #lnd     
12:18 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:25 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has joined #lnd     
12:26 -!- jerbil [uid28187@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gdtuizccvfvcmvvy] has joined #lnd     
12:27 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has quit [Client Quit]     
12:29 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has joined #lnd     
12:30 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
12:43 <@roasbeef> dymurray: the network is an authenticated datastructure, it cannot be sybil'd
12:44 <@roasbeef> in order to sbyil LN, you need to sybil bitcoin. how does bitcoin prevent sybil attacks? oh yeh, PoW and txn fees
12:44 <@roasbeef> please don't clog up the channel further with this misinformation, we've answered all your questions
12:45 <@roasbeef> you're taking one section from a paper and attempting to apply it to a *completely* unrelated problem, you should *actually read the paper*
12:46 < dymurray> roasbeef, Okay thank you I will. Appreciate the feedback. Not technically true you would have to sybil bitcoin. You can sybil any p2p network which LN is a p2p network. Have a good weekend
12:46 <@roasbeef> dymurray: in order to jion the network, you need a channel
12:46 <@roasbeef> nodes won't recognize you if you don't have channels
12:47 <@roasbeef> in order to get channels, you need to write to the chain, access to the chain is globally rate limited
12:47 < dymurray> roasbeef, yes I understand that
12:47 < dymurray> artificially globally rate limited*
12:47 <@roasbeef> your statement is vacuous
12:47 <@roasbeef> lol ok go mine a block dymurray
12:47 <@roasbeef> i'll wait
12:47 < dymurray> :D     
12:47 < dymurray> appreciate the discussion
12:50 < rafalcpp> 21:01] <dymurray> lightning devs are retarded <dymurray> its hilarioius
12:50 < rafalcpp> (:     
12:51 < dymurray> lol rafalcpp have a good weekend it was not fun talking to you
12:51 < dymurray> everyone else seemed to know what they were talking about
12:52 < dymurray> But nevertheless have a good weekend :D
12:52 < Oschi> good weekend
12:52 <@roasbeef> dymurray: please do your own reasearch
12:52 < Oschi> i cant wait for the weekend to begin
12:52 < dymurray> roasbeef, I will. I plan on trying to simulate this myself
12:52 < dymurray> Curious what numbers come out of it
12:52 <@roasbeef> ok lemmie know when you "sybil" the network (w/e that even means)
12:53 < dymurray> roasbeef, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
12:53 < dymurray> That's what I'm referring to
12:53 -!- haakonn [~haakonn@pdpc/supporter/active/haakonn] has joined #lnd     
12:53 <@roasbeef> lol I know what a sybil attack is...
12:53 <@roasbeef> it doesn't apply to this case
12:53 <@roasbeef> is what i'm trying to tell you
12:53 < Oschi> EVERY p2p CAN BE SYBILLED!!! >:(
12:53 < dymurray> roasbeef, A sybil attack is valid against every p2p network. I'm sorry if you find that statement annoying but its true
12:53 <@roasbeef> how do you sybil LN?
12:54 <@roasbeef> nodes will *ignore* you if you don't have a channel
12:54 <@roasbeef> you can't fake a channel, it's an entry in the chain
12:54 < Oschi> lemme simulate it
12:54 < rafalcpp> dymurray: every fucking one knows what Sybil is, I told you 3 times you arrogant prick lol
12:54 < dymurray> rafalcpp, wow.... very nice.
12:54 < dymurray> roasbeef, because all it takes is an avg hop length > 3 on any p2p network and you can be sybilled
12:54 < rafalcpp> dymurray: I am p2p developer, guys here are too, you look like maximum asshole when you try to patronize us "uhhh I know what Sybil is, here let me teach you"
12:54 < dymurray> thats mathematics
12:55 < dymurray> You've patronized me from the beginning and didn't know what a sybil attack was when we first started talking in #bitcoincash so I doubt you're a p2p dveloper
12:55 < aakselrod> dymurray: can you sybil me on bittorrent with a hop length over 3?
12:55 <@roasbeef> 3+1 is 4 minus 2, quick maths
12:55 < dymurray> aakselrod, I personally cannot
12:55 < dymurray> a cartel could
12:55 < aakselrod> a bittorrent cartel?
12:56 < dymurray> aakselrod, lol I know not likely
12:56 < dymurray> but when moneys involved?
12:56 <@roasbeef> dymurray: can you verify that maths above?
12:56 < aakselrod> what sort of cartel would it be?
12:56 < dymurray> 3+1 is 4 yes
12:56 <@roasbeef> excellent
12:56 <@roasbeef> but what about the merdian final clause?
12:56 < dymurray> aakselrod, if they own significant hashrate on the chain. AKA miners
12:57 <@roasbeef> the application of the latter clause of subtraction leads to a direct reduction
12:57 < dymurray> they sybil L2 and then use hashrate to attack L1
12:57 <@roasbeef> it seems you have not grasped quick maths
12:57 < aakselrod> dymurray: bittorrent?
12:57 < aakselrod> hash rate?
12:57 < dymurray> aakselrod, I'm talking about LN... bittorrent has no incentive for a cartel
12:57 < dymurray> look folks... I need to get off
12:57 <@roasbeef> if you cannaot grasp quick maths, then I'm afraid you may not understand LN dymurray
12:57 <@roasbeef> again
12:57 < dymurray> been a really long argument here
12:57 <@roasbeef> 3+1 is 4 minus 2, quick maths
12:57 < dymurray> 2     
12:57 <@roasbeef> evaluate!
12:57 <@roasbeef> no     
12:58 <@roasbeef> 2 is a complex integer in the frobenius plane
12:58 <@roasbeef> it has as j-invariant that is not compatible with 3
12:58 <@roasbeef> again
12:58 < dymurray> LOL okay roasbeef
12:58 <@roasbeef> you have not grasped quick maths
12:58 <@roasbeef> i'm afraid we can't continue this convo with your rudimentary knowledge of quick maths
12:59 < Oschi> the co-congulator of 2 is the appendix of the cubible of the 5th plane in the second junction
12:59 <@roasbeef> ahh, but what about the scalar coordiante applied to the second gradient!?
13:00 < dymurray> Cute guys. My closing point is that it is shocking to me and honestly scary that core is adopting LN and noone has published metrics?
13:00 < dymurray> Hope it turns out well though
13:00 < dymurray> have a good one folks
13:00 <@roasbeef> dymurray: quick maths m8
13:00 <@roasbeef> you dunnoit
13:00 < dymurray> roasbeef, okay
13:00 <@roasbeef> great
13:01 <@roasbeef> again: 3+1 minus 2....
13:01 <@roasbeef> QUICK MATHS
13:01 <@roasbeef> too l8
13:01 < Oschi> hey wanna play a quick game for a quick maths?
13:02 < Oschi> "Uhm.. sure?"
13:04 < rafalcpp> what would be best way to allow my c++ program to accept micro BTC payments for customers ?
13:04 < rafalcpp> currently I can just run bitcoind, and RPC into it. But with LN?
13:06 <@roasbeef> rafalcpp: check out: http://api.lightning.community/
13:06 <@roasbeef> there're c++ bindings for gRPChttps://grpc.io/docs/tutorials/basic/c.html
13:06 <@roasbeef> or you can use the REST interface
13:06 < rafalcpp> neat
13:07 < rafalcpp> and how much disk space will be needed? as for SPV wallet?
13:07 <@roasbeef> gRPC is nice as you gain access to real-time notifications and streaming RPC calls
13:07 < rafalcpp> +UTXO?
13:07 <@roasbeef> if neutrino it's tiny, if a full node then you'll need the entire chain as well
13:07 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: neutrion is as secure, besides chance of miners producing counterfeti block and feeding that block into my node?
13:08 < rafalcpp> (so as spv)
13:09 < Tootoot222> lol counterfeti, i imagine a ton of scraps of paper floating through the air with sequential numbers on each one
13:11 < rafalcpp> uhm... :P
13:11 < rafalcpp> counterfeit :)
13:11 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:12 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
13:12 < sovjet> so there are fees in LN ?
13:12 < sovjet> for "routing"
13:12 < aakselrod> rafalcpp: neutrino has similar security properties to BIP37
13:12 < aakselrod> sovjet: yes
13:13 < sovjet> how high are those fees ?
13:13 < rafalcpp> up to free market, probably around enough to cover the return that day trader could earn in the time for which the funds are locked?
13:14 < aakselrod> sovjet: depends on each node, probably minimal because payers can choose to route around higher fees
13:14 < aakselrod> so it's a competitive market
13:14 < sovjet> sweet
13:15 < sovjet> i dont even understand the basics but i like it
13:16 < rafalcpp> sovjet: 1 sentence LN is "alice and bob make and update doubly-signed transaction saying that they have 5 vs 5, then  6 vs 4, then 7 vs 3 BTC, instead of just paying on-chain 1 BTC each time; when they are done, only then they put the finall tx on chain, paying txfee just once" (gross simplification)
13:16 < rafalcpp> well that's payment channel.  LN is more like, take above, but Alice does that with Bob,   Bob does that with Charlie,  so as result Alice can trade with Charlie without directly talking to him
13:17 < sovjet> rafalcpp: iguess too gross, because i read that routing part
13:17 < sovjet> yes that
13:17 < rafalcpp> since Bob relays. but he relays money (I will lend you money since alice lended me money with intent for you)
13:17 < aakselrod> it's not really lending, it's conditionally forwarding
13:18 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef pushed 1 new commit to master: https://git.io/vb4Ga
13:18 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 1fa9ac7 Olaoluwa Osuntokun: docs: update sample-lnd.conf...
13:19 < rafalcpp> Im not clear on that forwarding part, when A sends to C via B, then what new transactions are constructed?  how it is atomic across all 3 parties
13:19 < sovjet> B takes fee, right ?
13:20 < rafalcpp> sovjet: yeah
13:21 < Oschi> if the relay node would decide to fraud, who would get his stake?
13:21 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@095-129-170-043-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
13:22 < rafalcpp> Oschi: he can't, somehow they construct something like  "ballance A vs B is chaned from 50-50 to 60-40, but only when ballance B vs Changes from 500-500 to 509-490"
13:22 < sovjet> relay node cant fraud or something ?
13:23 < rafalcpp> do they construct contracts that do that change between A and B, and between B and C,  and they are locked with 1 password (known by A) and then A releases that pass to everyone?
13:23 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:23 < rafalcpp> that was a bit hard part, when I was inventing my own LN (indepdenently) :)
13:23 < Oschi> gotta read the whole paper -.- but its sooo long and actually i shouldnt care because i have no BTC anyways :D
13:24 < sovjet> Oschi: get some mBTC at least
13:24 < rafalcpp> Oschi: aww man. buy even for 100$ today... buy +100 each 3 months, in the ende you will almost certainly profit (defaltion)
13:24 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
13:24 < Oschi> i have no CC
13:25 < rafalcpp> Oschi: ask in #bitcoin how to buy without CC; there are many options, including localbitcoins or mycelium and meeting in person for cash.
13:25 < aakselrod> rafalcpp: exactly, it's all "locked with 1 password" and then unlocked... using a hash preimage
13:25 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: neat!
13:26 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: how it's guaranteed that e.g. some pair further down the line sees that pass too? is it because it's revelated at leastest when A-B settle their ballance on chain?
13:26 < aakselrod> exactly right
13:27 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: one of my idea was that the end finall recipient would hold also a password, and it would be relayed backwards throug chain. is that not needed?
13:27 < aakselrod> rafalcpp: that's actually how it's currently done, the preimage is generated by the recipient and is only released when the recipient gets the money they're expecting
13:28 < aakselrod> eventually we'll allow the sender to create the hash and send the encrypted preimage to the recipient with the payment, so the recipient can reveal it upon receipt
13:28 < rafalcpp> great
13:28 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: someone got around to actually implement my ideas  :P
13:29 < Oschi> tell us some more of your ideas ;)
13:29 < rafalcpp> Oschi: I've planned such micro payment chains for other thing, like year-2 ago.  Seems LN replaces needs for most of it
13:29 < rafalcpp> will see if for all.
13:29 < rafalcpp> it's wonderfull that so much can be done actually without need to "give up bitcoin", but directly on top of bitcoin
13:30 < Oschi> can you solve the consesus problem with something else than PoW rafalcpp? xD
13:31 < rafalcpp> Oschi: seems it's not solvable, PoS has it's issues. we can disucc more in #bitcoin best (though Im afk soon for weekend)
13:38 < AndyS2> and retain their last valid ballance that they had transated on LN,  even if any part of LN is blocked or not
13:38 < AndyS2>                      coopearting etc.  Is that so?  (though not 100% sure how much they must wait there)
13:39 -!- MaxSan [~user@185.156.175.59] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:40 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-axoltvfeqblrytnm] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
13:50 < haakonn> "lnd currently requires btcd with segwit support, which is not yet merged into the master branch." <- is this outdated, or has btcd really *still* not merged segwit?
13:51 <@roasbeef> that's dated
13:52 <@roasbeef> it has segwit
13:52 <@roasbeef> but we haven't merged in the neutrino serving code
13:52 < rafalcpp> is neutrino and other software parts buildable in Gitian yet?
13:53 <@roasbeef> gitian is specific to c based programs afaik
13:53 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: no
13:53 <@roasbeef> we have plans to develop a series of tools for deterministic builds, gitian is well...hard to use
13:53 < rafalcpp> it takes care of heaving identical build environment, systems, all libs, all packages, also date and time etc
13:54 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: there isn't anything easier to use, is there
13:54 <@roasbeef> golang code is all statically linked, so don't need to go thru as many hoops to get deterministic builds
13:54 <@roasbeef> not yet there isn't ;)
13:54 <@roasbeef> stay tuned on that front
13:55 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: if you give me build.sh that produces identical binary at least when run on same computer at same time (use "faketime build.sh") , then I can perhaps make you a gitian
13:55 <@roasbeef> gitian is hard to use, we're makingn somethign simpler, just for our pure golang programs
13:55 < rafalcpp> it's around half of the work probably. I hope go doesn't suck up some arcane system datails and embbed them in binary
13:56 < rafalcpp> roasbeef: I've made gitian easy to use, ./gitian.sh and that's all
13:56 <@roasbeef> nah: https://blog.filippo.io/reproducing-go-binaries-byte-by-byte/
13:56 < rafalcpp> and install.sh to have proper local network for container
13:56 < rafalcpp> though yeah if go has more native tool, it might be easier, and more portable.
13:56 <@roasbeef> then combine that with https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/648.pdf
13:56 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd     
13:56 <@roasbeef> dunzo
13:57 < rafalcpp> can neutrino be configured to use full bitcoin nodes on 127.0.0.1 and then it is fully secure?
13:58 < aakselrod> yes     
13:59 < aakselrod> but then you might as well just use the btcd or bitcoind back end
13:59 < rafalcpp> aakselrod: are they used same way from my program, as I would use neutrino?
14:00 < aakselrod> rafalcpp: you just set different configuration options for lnd depending on which back end you want and where/how to connect
14:06 < AndyS2> oh sorry, that above there was probably the kid of a friend pasting my buffer
14:08 < rafalcpp> AndyS2: last time that happened to me, I sent to IRC: bill clinton is a rapist, info wars dot com
14:08 < rafalcpp> smart kid :)
14:09 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
14:09 < AndyS2> rafalcpp: lol
14:10 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
14:10 < rafalcpp> would peer2peer connectivity help to build good graph for LN?
14:11 < Oschi> isnt that whats happening?
14:11 < rafalcpp> if each node wouldbe reachable as if with public IP. I know the graph is mostly about money, but is p2p reachability helpful for anything?
14:11 < rafalcpp> Oschi: even in bitcoin for example, only like 5-10% of nodes are reachable, others don't have public ip
14:12 < rafalcpp> can in LN any node send any protocol message directly to any other node if it needs to talk to it directly?
14:12 < rafalcpp> if it knowns it's pubkey or such
14:13 < Oschi> probably like in normal btc network? if the node decides to hide its hidden?
14:13 < rafalcpp> Oschi: no, in bitcoin you can NOT talk to bitcoin nodes directly. you can talk only to your peers, that must have open IP internet port (or you must have it open if they want to peer into you)
14:14 < Oschi> in LN you build also channels to 1 other node only. and then p2p routes that to the destination if possible?
14:15 < Oschi> well not real p2p?
14:15 < Oschi> you build a graph by opening channels
14:15 < Oschi> and then use propagation algos inside that graph
14:16 < rafalcpp> well A-B-C,  A can talk to C because B needs to relay some part of agreement to C, to forward the *payment*,
14:16 < Oschi> yea     
14:16 < rafalcpp> but oherwise B is under no obligation to relay any other message from A to C
14:16 < Oschi> i guess
14:16 < sovjet> but B will because he gets a fee
14:17 < rafalcpp> like if A wants to talk to C about "hmm do you trust B? I herd it often goes offline, maybe we should search other route between us, got any good peers?"
14:17 < rafalcpp> ofc is can be encrypted. but is it implemented that B will pass any messagess between any nodes it can reach?
14:17 < Oschi> but you have a channel to B i.e. you trust them
14:17 < rafalcpp> or does it only pass the ones that are payemnts and he must pass them to route the money
14:18 < rafalcpp> Oschi: no, maybe he was just picked at random.   ability to talk to any node (known by some id/pubkey) would be useful for some things I suppose
14:19 < Oschi> ok     
14:20 < rafalcpp> or maybe I've seen C some time ago and I do not currently have opened money tunnel to him, but I can e.g. exchange opinions about other nodes.  it's good to gossip which nodes are hihg uptime and realiable, to avoid locking up your money unintentionally for long
14:20 < rafalcpp> reputation / WoT system etc
14:20 < Oschi> WoT?
14:21 < rafalcpp> web of trust.   I trust you at 50%, if you say that you like X at 50%, that I trust him at 25% instead od default 0% (stranger)
14:21 < Oschi> maybe you can use the L1 blockchain as indicator. if many contracts are fulfilled correctly and not aborted etc its an indicator?
14:22 < sovjet> rafalcpp: is that high uptime nodes in the ln already implemented ?
14:22 < rafalcpp> L1 is probably too expensive, hopefully can be avoided
14:22 < rafalcpp> sovjet: no idea. Just wondering did they implemented any-to-any anywhere messaging system as part of the work. if not, perhaps I can help a bit
14:22 < sovjet> thought you are the dev :)
14:23 < Oschi> rafalcpp yeah check that with the devs first, what they thought about it
14:23 < rafalcpp> sovjet: I'm not. wh knows perhaps one day I can help. Opensource, anyone can send patches :)
14:33 -!- Oschi [~userid@unaffiliated/pril] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
14:36 -!- Hinton [326f6d0d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.111.109.13] has joined #lnd     
14:40 -!- johanth [uid223041@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-donidmycrvtxuitr] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
14:41 -!- Hinton [326f6d0d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.111.109.13] has left #lnd []     
14:50 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef closed pull request #454: [Trivial] fundingmanager: add more logging after funding confirmation (master...fundingmanager-logging) https://git.io/vbGDw
15:01 -!- lxer [~lx@ip5f5bd55d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:08 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:09 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
15:09 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:10 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
15:11 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef pushed 3 new commits to master: https://git.io/vb4uD
15:11 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 9e4da65 Micah Lerner: proto: Add destination addresses to lnrpc definitions
15:11 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 6ae7d27 Micah Lerner: lnwallet: Add destination addresses to listchaintxns
15:11 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 231ed5b Micah Lerner: lnwallet: Update tests to check destination addresses
15:13 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has joined #lnd     
15:16 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:17 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
15:17 -!- bule [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:18 -!- keppdog [a0272127@gateway/web/freenode/ip.160.39.33.39] has joined #lnd     
15:24 -!- Rimla_ [c2e69b76@gateway/web/freenode/ip.194.230.155.118] has joined #lnd     
15:25 -!- n00b [25189426@gateway/web/freenode/ip.37.24.148.38] has joined #lnd     
15:26 -!- n00b is now known as Guest5995     
15:26 < Guest5995> hey guys, i have a n00b question for you concerning lightning network, anyone can help?
15:26 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Quit: .]     
15:27 < Guest5995> anyone?
15:27 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/saleemrashid] has joined #lnd     
15:28 < Guest5995> hey     
15:28 < rafalcpp> Guest5995: just ask the question, dont ask to ask.  also, wait like few hours  for reply
15:28 < Guest5995> okay thx
15:28 < Guest5995> so     
15:28 < rafalcpp> Guest5995: if users here left for weekend it can take like till monday to get replies. idle
15:28 < Guest5995> I've got a technical question to ya guys: Let's say we have a lightning transaction from A to B routing over hub H  before transaction it is:  A(1btc) <--> (1btc) H (1btc) <--> (1btc) B  after transaction it is:  A(0.5btc) <--> (1.5btc) H (0.5btc) <--> (1.5btc) B  Is there a way for Hub H to rebalance the channels WITHOUT an on-chain transaction?  A(0.5btc) <--> (1btc) H (1btc) <--> (1.5btc) B
15:29 < rafalcpp> good question. I dunno, lets wait
15:30 < Guest5995> am really excited how this works in the end
15:43 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
15:46 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:50 -!- blyat [~blyat@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has joined #lnd     
15:54 <@roasbeef> Guest5995: the routing node just sends a payment to itself, H -> A -> B -> A, assuming that path exists
15:54 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
15:56 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
15:58 -!- keppdog [a0272127@gateway/web/freenode/ip.160.39.33.39] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:00 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:00 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #lnd     
16:06 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:07 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
16:07 < Sentineo> how is the path discovered?
16:13 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Quit: .]     
16:13 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:13 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd     
16:15 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/saleemrashid] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.9.1]     
16:17 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
16:18 <@roasbeef> it's source routed, the routing node does it if it detects a cycle it and utilize to its advantage
16:18 <@roasbeef> or a payment comes across the other direction, and the routing node doesn't need to do anything
16:19 < mlz> hey roasbeef go1.9.2 is the latest version, should we update to it?
16:19 -!- lndbot1 [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd     
16:19 -!- lightningbot1 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd     
16:19 < lndbot1> <bvu> test, please ignore (3)
16:19 < mlz> bvu, you are ignored!
16:20 <@roasbeef> 1.10 is actually the latest, well beta
16:20 < mlz> i'm about to install another lnd node, should i get go1.9.2?
16:20 < mlz> wut     
16:20 -!- lightningbot5 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:20 -!- lndbot [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:20 <@roasbeef> would be nice if peeps can test using 1.10 to see if any issues pop up
16:21 < mlz> ok i'll test
16:21 < mlz> but even if it has issues i might not know :P
16:21 < lightningbot1> <bvu> test, thanks for ignoring!
16:21 < mlz> bvu, yw  :D
16:22 <@roasbeef> well generally should reduce memory usage and make things faster
16:34 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
16:35 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
16:37 -!- MaxSan [~user@185.156.175.59] has joined #lnd     
16:40 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd     
16:41 -!- Gabe [c7079d4b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.199.7.157.75] has joined #lnd     
16:46 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Quit: .]     
16:50 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/vb4r7
16:50 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master cf6f313 Micah Lerner: channeldb: update channeldb to set and store SettleDate for invoices
16:50 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 0f3ff11 Micah Lerner: rpcserver: add SettleDate to rpcserver invoice response
16:56 < mlz> well roasbeef i'm installing a branking new btcd node, just started it, it seems really fast
16:56 < mlz> i got go0.10beta1
16:56 < mlz> go1.10beta1*
16:58 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
16:58 -!- don [56287711@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.40.119.17] has joined #lnd     
16:58 -!- don is now known as Guest48490     
16:59 -!- Guest48490 [56287711@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.40.119.17] has quit [Client Quit]     
17:02 -!- blyat [~blyat@cpe-71-71-200-3.carolina.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
17:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:04 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
17:11 < Guest5995> is something like this going to be implemented? https://www.coindesk.com/scaling-lightning-revive-boost-bitcoins-boldest-scaling-plan/
17:18 <@roasbeef> Guest5995: that's super overkill
17:18 <@roasbeef> it uses leader election to eelect a node to do rebalancing
17:18 <@roasbeef> when the nodes can just do it themselves if a cycle exists
17:18 <@roasbeef> even modifies the channel to be aware of the rebalancing, when it's just a regular payment
17:18 -!- MaxSan [~user@185.156.175.59] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:18 < Guest5995> ah okay. thx for the info.
17:20 < Guest5995> has the rebalancing already been tested on testnet? does it work properly, are there enough of these cycles? just curious, sry for my noob questions ;)
17:21 < lightningbot1> <conner> we “rebalanced” bitcoin for litecoin :slightly_smiling_face:
17:21 < Guest5995> ;)     
17:21 < Gabe> Post LN would Buying Bitcoin be any cheaper (from fiat) ? My guess would be that it would because say you buy from {exchange} they open a channel with you with the balance (and say they eat the opening fees).  This would allow you to transfer BTC from them to anyone they already have a channel through effectively allowing them to make some of the fees back.  Am I correct or is there something I'm missing?
17:23 < lightningbot1> <conner> pathfinding would need to be modified to support cycle finding, so i don’t think there have been any explicit tests of rebalancing. would also need some sort of heuristics to decide when/how often to rebalance when accounting for the possibility of passive rebalancing as a result of processing other payments
17:24 < B0g4r7_> I envision LN being the primary layer used for nearly all transactions, with settlement back onto the blockchain only occurring at some kind of regular interval per channel (think weeks).
17:29 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:30 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
17:33 -!- jerbil [uid28187@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gdtuizccvfvcmvvy] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
17:40 -!- jerbil [uid28187@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qeurknqsutckvhec] has joined #lnd     
17:44 -!- Gabe [c7079d4b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.199.7.157.75] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
18:03 -!- intcat [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
18:04 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
18:15 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
18:15 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
18:24 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-emsjvytwfpopxdgo] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
18:27 -!- it5mark [~it5mark@90.255.117.49] has joined #lnd     
18:28 < it5mark> oh man it's been 25 yrs since I used IRC, bare with me!
18:29 -!- seven_ [49a273b7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.162.115.183] has joined #lnd     
18:34 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
18:52 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd     
18:52 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
18:52 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd     
19:02 < Guest5995> hey. are layer-3 solutions already developed, or is the current lnd branch layer-2 only?
19:05 < Styil> Define "third layer"
19:05 < Styil> I'd say atomic chainswaps for example count as third layer
19:13 -!- seven_ [49a273b7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.162.115.183] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:18 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
19:18 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
19:23 < Guest5995> i mean layer-3 like described in here: https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf
19:23 < Guest5995> enabling trust-less off-blockchain channel funding
19:24 < Guest5995> flexibly creating one- to-one channels for the payment network
19:25 < Guest5995> allowing rapid changes of the allocation of funds to channels and reduce the cost of opening new channels
19:26 < Guest5995> Instead of one blockchain transaction per channel, each user only needs one transaction to enter a group of nodes – within the group the user can create arbitrary many channels
19:26 < Guest5995> Styil: any thoughts?
19:28 < Styil> looks cool but I don't see how this is third layer
19:30 < Guest5995> so more like a layer 2.1 ? :)
19:30 < Guest5995> my question is: would it be possible to add sth. like this to lnd later?
19:36 < aakselrod> Guest5995: it will take another spec or the next version of the spec to include that. the spec was almost finalized when that paper was published. but eventually, yes, this will be added to lnd.
19:36 < aakselrod> we're all very excited about it
19:36 < Guest5995> nice to hear that it is possible to add sth. like that later.
19:38 < Guest5995> i think, get the thing running first, then add improvements later is the way to go. Really amazed by all the work being put into this. no mainstream usage of btc without proper functioning lightning :)
19:38 < aakselrod> we're all very excited about that too :)
20:13 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:14 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
20:17 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:18 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
20:40 -!- it5mark [~it5mark@90.255.117.49] has quit []     
20:52 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:06 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: gaf_, mlz, TD-Linux, achow101, aakselrod, B0g4r7_, @josephpoon, lightningbot1, Giszmo, StopAndDecrypt_,  (+15 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
21:07 -!- georgeangel[m] [georgeange@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-wzqewlyhlkjtorya] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:08 -!- shem[m] [shemmatrix@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-sutjbmmfkiluaobg] has quit [Ping timeout: 243 seconds]     
21:08 -!- afdudley [afdudleyma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-ukxzzbwaukoaftey] has quit [Ping timeout: 243 seconds]     
21:08 -!- cjd[m] [cdelisle1@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-viatjnkwkhokphuv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:09 -!- interfect[m] [interfectm@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-gobrzqojpeidtskc] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
21:11 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- lightningbot1 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- haakonn [~haakonn@pdpc/supporter/active/haakonn] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- fronti [~fronti@irc.fh-biergarten.de] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- mesh_ [meshcollid@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-gaqodbwqduovxbiv] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- kbgg [Elite20763@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-ddcrriwlavunczga] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- thorie [~thorie@thorie.xen.prgmr.com] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- Deadhand [~deadhand@CPE6038e0be3871-CMf0f249a14e40.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #lnd     
21:11 -!- lightningbot1 [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has quit [Write error: Broken pipe]     
21:11 -!- lightningbot [~lightning@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd     
21:13 -!- snadge [~snadge@unaffiliated/snadge] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- aakselrod [~aakselrod@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/aakselrod] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- betawaffle [~betawaffl@h1.kdf.io] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- mlz [~IRCIdent@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- kpcyrd [~kpcyrd@146.185.133.250] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- Provoostenator [~Provooste@ec2-18-194-164-183.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com] has joined #lnd     
21:14 -!- gaf_ [~fag@12.smos-linux.org] has joined #lnd     
21:15 -!- lndbot1 [~lndbot@138.197.213.35] has joined #lnd     
21:15 -!- StopAndDecrypt_ [~StopAndDe@c-73-248-248-9.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
21:16 -!- TD-Linux [~Thomas@about/essy/indecisive/TD-Linux] has joined #lnd     
21:16 -!- yoink [~yoink@unaffiliated/yoink] has joined #lnd     
21:16 -!- josephpoon [~josephpoo@205.185.122.187] has joined #lnd     
21:16 -!- ServerMode/#lnd [+o josephpoon] by barjavel.freenode.net     
21:16 -!- yoink [~yoink@unaffiliated/yoink] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]     
21:16 -!- zshlyk [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
21:17 -!- yoink [~yoink@unaffiliated/yoink] has joined #lnd     
21:18 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
21:30 <@roasbeef> Guest5995: more like layer -2, channels all the way down
21:31 < Guest5995> so basically channel-in-channel, right?!
21:32 <@roasbeef> yeh     
21:32 <@roasbeef> could even be done unbeknowst to anyone else
21:33 <@roasbeef> i could make a channel with you, but i'm really 50 ppl
21:39 -!- lightningbot is now known as 18VACW2TB     
21:39 -!- Styil [~Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd     
21:39 -!- buZz [~buzz@unaffiliated/buzz] has joined #lnd     
21:39 -!- B0g4r7_ [~B0g4r7@208.76.201.166] has joined #lnd     
21:39 -!- takinbo [~takinbo@unaffiliated/takinbo] has joined #lnd     
21:41 < Guest5995> just testing eclair on windows, anyone knows where the eclair.conf is stored by default?
22:22 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
22:23 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
22:25 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
22:26 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
22:40 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@user182.c2.sevnica.kabelnet.net] has joined #lnd     
22:43 -!- thor1 [49e723b1@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.231.35.177] has joined #lnd     
22:44 < thor1> hey     
22:44 < thor1> love lnd and that it's written in Go
22:44 < thor1> anyone awake?
22:59 -!- thor1 [49e723b1@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.231.35.177] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
23:02 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #lnd     
23:13 -!- B0g4r7_ [~B0g4r7@208.76.201.166] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
23:13 -!- B0g4r7_ [~B0g4r7@208.76.201.166] has joined #lnd     
23:21 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:23 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
23:26 -!- Guest5995 [25189426@gateway/web/freenode/ip.37.24.148.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
23:28 -!- lxer [~lx@ip5f5bd55d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #lnd     
23:29 -!- melik [~melik@97.90.42.34] has joined #lnd     
23:29 < melik> hello hellooooooooO!
23:30 -!- newbie-- [~irc@mirk.info] has joined #lnd     
23:37 -!- bule2 [~bule@gateway/tor-sasl/bule] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
23:48 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:49 -!- yoctopede [~zshlyk@gateway/tor-sasl/intcat] has joined #lnd     
23:55 < Styil> Yo can someone tell me where the file for the actual wallet is in Lightning App?
23:56 < Styil> Updated to a new version and moved old DataDir, elsewhere, my funds are no longer showing up