--- Day changed Sat Jan 06 2018
00:03 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
00:12 -!- lxer [~lx@ip5f5bf6f0.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #lnd     
00:12 -!- Pioklo_ [~Pioklo@118-40.echostar.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
00:16 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@91.246.70.194] has joined #lnd     
00:53 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@91.246.70.194] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
01:13 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
01:19 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
01:20 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has joined #lnd     
01:24 -!- capa66 [capa66@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/capa66] has joined #lnd     
01:25 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #lnd     
01:27 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yqyfocatvkglqsdj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
01:46 -!- seaelem [~seaelem@1.136.107.111] has joined #lnd     
01:50 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
01:50 -!- sdfgsdf [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
01:51 -!- sdfgsdf [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:51 -!- sdfgsdf [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
01:51 -!- drz_ [~drz@76-211-118-122.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lnd     
01:53 -!- drz [~drz@2602:304:cd37:67a0:3992:b7c1:4653:9e53] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:59 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wswnufoafosgrpgb] has joined #lnd     
02:06 -!- sdfgsdf [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
02:10 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
02:15 < Veggen>         r, err := rotator.New(logFile, 10*1024, false, 3)
02:15 < Veggen> ...should make this one configurable?
02:15 < Veggen> I want older logs :)
02:20 < Veggen> rsync -avh .lnd/logs/testnet3/bitcoin/ log/lnd/ every 5 minutes will do the trick for now.
02:45 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has joined #lnd     
02:52 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.14] has joined #lnd     
03:05 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
03:10 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@188.146.104.156.nat.umts.dynamic.t-mobile.pl] has joined #lnd     
03:16 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@093-092-181-137-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
03:17 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@80.250.77.116] has joined #lnd     
03:34 -!- wxss [~user@94.242.219.107] has joined #lnd     
03:38 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:42 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.14] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
03:47 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
04:05 -!- seaelem [~seaelem@1.136.107.111] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
04:08 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd     
04:08 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
04:09 -!- galileopy [~galileopy@181.121.86.83] has joined #lnd     
04:09 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:11 -!- galileopy is now known as electrumuser     
04:13 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
04:14 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
04:27 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.97] has joined #lnd     
04:28 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:29 -!- creslin_ [~textual@85-118-78-198.mtel.net] has joined #lnd     
04:30 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
04:32 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.97] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
04:32 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
04:33 -!- Zouppen_ is now known as Zouppen     
04:37 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
04:39 -!- YungMoonHodler [~me@unaffiliated/boscop] has joined #lnd     
04:39 -!- david__ [55c3ff1a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.85.195.255.26] has joined #lnd     
04:43 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
04:47 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wswnufoafosgrpgb] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
04:48 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
04:57 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has joined #lnd     
05:13 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
05:13 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has joined #lnd     
05:14 -!- creslin_ [~textual@85-118-78-198.mtel.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
05:20 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
05:22 < zyp> is there any easy way to extract the private keys from a lnd wallet?
05:25 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]     
05:45 < drexl> "blocks_till_open": -578 what's going on here ? :/
05:46 <@molz> you can ignore it
05:50 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.14] has joined #lnd     
05:52 -!- IniGit [~Gernot@62-178-56-62.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #lnd     
05:53 < IniGit>  Can somebody tell me what is the state of the lightning network implementation in Bitcoin. Is it to be expected soon? Will it be first integrated in another currency?
05:54 -!- JackH [~laptop@host-80-43-142-149.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
05:55 <@molz> lightning is layer 2, it's not going to be implemeted into bitcoin protocol
05:55 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
05:55 < IniGit> I know
05:55 < IniGit> Let me rephrase that question
05:56 < IniGit>  Can somebody tell me what is the state of the lightning network? Is it to be expected ready for Mainnet soon?  Will it be first integrated in another currency?
05:57 < zyp> lightning transactions have been performed on mainnet already
05:57 <@molz> you really need to read up to ask questions lol 
05:57 < zyp> there's nobody stopping you from setting up your own node and performing transactions today, assuming you have somebody to transact with
05:59 < IniGit> Is this in alhpa stage on the mainnet or already production ready?
06:00 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
06:00 < IniGit> From the point of view of loosing money in lightning network
06:01 < IniGit> The message above states  v0.3-alpha is the latest release but there's also a 1.9.1 version?
06:03 < Veggen> IniGit: you need to understand that this is money we are talking about. You are not going to have someone to gurantee the safety of your coins at this stage.
06:03 < Veggen> People who know what they are doing, know the subject in detail, and do this in a limited and controlled fashion, will very likely be fine doing it on mainnet now.
06:04 < Veggen> But ready for mainstream adoption? Not likely yet.
06:05 < IniGit> Veggen: For Bitcoin it took quite some time that it was considered to be safe. It also took quite some educational effort. Eduction about Lightning Network is a quite different beast then Bitcoin. This will be very hard and will need to be explained incredebly well.
06:05 < Veggen> but understand: if you decide to use it on main net now, you will have to do your own assessment about the safety of it, and a lot of the safety depends on your knwoledge.
06:05 < Veggen> IniGit: yes, I agree.
06:06 < IniGit> Veggen: So it will take years to reach mainstream adoption.
06:06 < zyp> IniGit, if you want to learn, I suggest you do some experimentation on testnet
06:06 < Veggen> IniGit: not so sure about that.
06:06 < zyp> that's what I'm currently doing
06:06 < IniGit> Veggen: I think that should give me time to dig deeper into LIghtning Network. What is the main implementations programming langauge?
06:07 < Veggen> IniGit: lnd is programmed in Go.
06:07 < IniGit> only Go so far?
06:07 < zyp> c-lightning is C and eclair is scala IIRC
06:08 < IniGit> But what is currently considered to be the most up to date and heavily developed version?
06:08 < IniGit> Go?     
06:08 < IniGit> Or where do most people or the main team work on?
06:08 < zyp> my impression is that they are overall at a similar level of maturity
06:08 < Veggen> IniGit: remember, lightning is not all or nothing. I am quite sure that when lightning is launched, whatever that means, on main net, quite a lot of people will put *some* coins in a lightning wallet.
06:08 < Veggen> I'd probably do it on day one myself :)
06:09 -!- YungMoonHodler [~me@unaffiliated/boscop] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]     
06:09 < IniGit> Veggen: You said Lightning can already be used, so I thought it is launched. How do you define launched?
06:09 < zyp> I'm aiming to have my online shop accept lightning payments as soon as I'm comfortable putting real money into LN
06:09 < Veggen> IniGit: that's why I added "whatever that means" :)
06:10 < Veggen> right now, the only people who have transacted on the main net have been in controlled situations.
06:10 < IniGit> Veggen: Do you think the main devs will do some kind of marketing?
06:10 < Veggen> IniGit:  but it *can* be used today. There's noone who actually stops you.
06:11 < IniGit> Or try to educate people
06:11 < IniGit> really hard
06:11 < Veggen> IniGit: education is sort of already happening.
06:12 < zyp> I think «if you make it, they will come» is a good saying
06:12 < Veggen> I think we'll need an easy and mature mobile wallet or two, an exchange or such or a larger vendor supporting it, then snowball will be rolling.
06:13 < IniGit> Veggen: You mean with exchange supporting it that the excahnge runs a node to support the network so that people can transact to a much wider range of people?
06:15 < zyp> IniGit, when you buy bitcoin on an exchange, instead of sending you the bitcoin directly, the exchange can open a channel to you, pushing the funds to your side of the channel
06:17 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has joined #lnd     
06:18 < IniGit> zyp: Ok that means you can buy Bitcoins multiple times for the costs of the channel. But why shoudl exchanges do that? Will they do it to avoid load on the Bitcoin chain? WIll they loose fees?
06:20 < Veggen> IniGit: the exchanges at least claims that they don't take a fee of their own for sending BTC today :)
06:20 < zyp> opening a channel requires an on-chain commitment transaction, which costs pretty much the same as just sending you the funds on-chain
06:21 < zyp> and when you later use the channel to send transactions, they can collect fees on routing the transactions
06:21 < zyp> and next time you buy more bitcoin after having spent some, they can just send it over the channel rather than making a new on-chain commitment
06:21 < IniGit> Yeah but they can collect fees on their database like they do now
06:21 < Veggen> zyp: and they can also probably use the same channel to send funds to you the next time?
06:22 < IniGit> Yeah but they can collect fees for withdraw anyway even if it is practically free for them to send it
06:22 < IniGit> Like they do now with most currencies
06:22 < Veggen> IniGit: sure. But anyone who can offer services with less fees will be of a competitional advantage, no?
06:23 < IniGit> Veggen: That's true, but currently we are at 5-10$ withdraw fees at centralized exchanges
06:23 < IniGit> I hope KyberNetwork or so does change this
06:23 < IniGit> If the prices are competitive there
06:23 < IniGit> token prices
06:24 < Veggen> IniGit: so how is your bitcoin testnet node going?
06:25 < zyp> hmm, my nodes are still not announcing themselves properly
06:25 -!- JackH [~laptop@host-80-43-142-201.as13285.net] has joined #lnd     
06:25 < Veggen> zyp: sure about that? what can you/can you not do?
06:26 < IniGit> Veggen: I have no Bitcoin testnet node, but I'm a programmer and I'm very interested to work on decentralized System like Bitcoin and Lightning Network in the future, but I can only do it if I'm very dedicated about it. When I'm not dedicated due to have to go to a dayjob I will be not help. So currently I try to crush the crypto market, make some money and then help
06:26 < zyp> I set up three new nodes today, funded one, used it to open channels to the other two, and the edge nodes still doesn't get told about each other
06:27 < Veggen> ok, are you connected to test net?
06:27 < zyp> I now have complete logs from all three, so it should be more to work with than what I had yesterday
06:27 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:27 < Veggen> good :)
06:27 < zyp> yesterday the logs got clogged up by everything else going on on testnet, now the three new nodes are only talking to each other
06:27 < Veggen> I actually created a cron scripts so that I get to keep more than 3 old log files.
06:28 < zyp> but the behavior I see is the same
06:28 < Veggen> rsync -avh --exclude lnd.log /home/vegard/.lnd/logs/testnet3/bitcoin/ /home/vegard/log/lnd/
06:28 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has joined #lnd     
06:28 < zyp> got to go now, but I'll put together the information I have later tonight
06:28 -!- yo_ [2f2ae8cc@gateway/web/freenode/ip.47.42.232.204] has joined #lnd     
06:29 < Veggen> IniGit: I try to at least educate myself :) So I run a test node. When Lightning is ready, I want to be ready for it too :)
06:29 -!- yo_ is now known as shownuff     
06:30 < Veggen> right now, I'm pondering creating a python script toolbox to get info about the LN node.
06:31 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
06:33 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
06:36 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
06:36 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #lnd     
06:36 < IniGit> Veggen: Yeah I also try, but I cannot analyse it in detail and help when I do not have full dedication to it. I'm that kind of person I need focus or it will not work. Especially at this complicated topic. Currently my education about crypto is more broad and highler level, I do not dig very deep into a specific project. I try as much as I can but it's not enough to start developing or so.
06:37 < IniGit> Currently I need very much time to analyse the market.
06:38 < Veggen> I'm trying to ignore the market and focus on the tech ;)
06:38 <@molz> so you're a trader?
06:38 <@molz> learning how LN works is first off to help yourself
06:38 < IniGit> lets say I do invest in many projects atm. I do no daytrading or so
06:39 < Veggen> I have some put into crypto too. But not to daytrade, it's because I expect to use them.
06:39 < IniGit> Education is key
06:39 < IniGit> to be able to hodl
06:40 < Veggen> I have a "savings account" that will either go to zero or to a holiday flat in my favourite country, though. But I also have a lot that I spend from, and I expect the spendings in fiat value to surpass my fiat investment quite soon.
06:40 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]     
06:42 < Veggen> when that happens, I'll regard a bit of *that* lot as "Money I can afford to play with". Maybe I'll put the funds in a small LN node?
06:42 -!- buZz [~buzz@unaffiliated/buzz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
06:43 -!- buZz [~buzz@unaffiliated/buzz] has joined #lnd     
06:43 < IniGit> yeah I'll invest at some later stage for sure also in nodes of some projects :)
06:44 < IniGit> with later stage I mean in a few month or year or so hopefully :)
06:45 < Veggen> right now, I find LN the most exiting thing to follow.
06:47 <@molz> just saw this:  https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/949434763474948096
06:57 -!- buZz [~buzz@unaffiliated/buzz] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
07:07 -!- vicenteH [~user@35.233.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
07:07 -!- vicenteH [~user@35.233.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #lnd     
07:11 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
07:12 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #lnd     
07:16 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
07:16 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd     
07:21 -!- buZz [~buzz@unaffiliated/buzz] has joined #lnd     
07:26 -!- provoostenator_ is now known as provoostenator     
07:27 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
07:32 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
07:42 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@188.146.104.156.nat.umts.dynamic.t-mobile.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
07:42 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
07:45 -!- PaulCape_ [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:47 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
07:48 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
07:48 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd     
08:06 < drexl> i have 2 open channels and I am just unable to pay any invoice
08:06 < drexl> it just hangs then forever
08:06 < drexl> there*
08:13 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip68-100-207-91.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #lnd     
08:14 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
08:18 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
08:24 -!- BubbleWater [~Mutter@221.124.28.53] has joined #lnd     
08:24 -!- lxer [~lx@ip5f5bf6f0.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
08:25 <@molz> drexl, which client are you running?
08:25 < drexl> lnd     
08:25 <@molz> who do you have channels with?
08:26 -!- capa66_ [capa66@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/capa66] has joined #lnd     
08:26 < drexl> https://pastebin.com/NfLzFcBx
08:27 <@molz> im not sure whose nodes those are, did they give you an invoice so you can pay them?
08:27 < drexl> no i am trying to pay starblocks and yalls.org through these channels
08:27 < drexl> they are just some random nodes
08:27 <@molz> lol ok
08:27 <@molz> sorry but that's not how it works
08:27 < drexl> that should work right?
08:27 < drexl> hmm     
08:28 <@molz> unless you know they also have channels with starblocks 
08:28 < drexl> how many hops can my payment make ?
08:28 <@molz> depends
08:28 <@molz> why don you set up like this: have your two nodes with starblocks and yalls
08:28 <@molz> and bitrefill
08:29 <@molz> but the two nodes don't have a channel with each other
08:29 <@molz> and you try to pay from one node to the other
08:29 < drexl> ok I'll try that
08:29 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@KD111103034253.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:29 <@molz> and when you set up channels with the other nodes, send some push_amt to them
08:29 -!- capa66 [capa66@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/capa66] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
08:30 < drexl> could you explain how the routing works? I thought I can jyst have a channel with one peer and I could pay anyone else in the network if there is a valid route
08:33 -!- capa66_ [capa66@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/capa66] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
08:36 <@molz> drexl, it works by logics, think of how you can send money to A thru B or C 
08:38 < drexl> molz if a chain of channels exists with enough balance with say 5 hops am I able to use that? Is there a limit to how many hops my payment can make ?
08:39 <@molz> drexl, but what if the people in that chain have nothing to do with the person you want to send money to?
08:39 < drexl> well they get to charge a fee for their service
08:42 <@molz> drexl, that doesn't make sense
08:44 < drexl> molz I am just trying to understand the protocol, are you saying that I can only pay C through B if I have a channel with B (1 hop) but I cannot pay D through C through B (2 hops) ?
08:44 -!- whphhg [~whphhg@unaffiliated/whphhg] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
08:45 <@molz> drexl, no i didnot say that
08:46 <@molz> you picked two random nodes to have channels with and you can't pay other nodes, probably because those two nodes don't have channels with the nodes you want to pay, or they just don't have any channels but only with you
08:46 < drexl> no they have channels I saw it in explorer.acinq.co
08:46 -!- whphhg [~whphhg@unaffiliated/whphhg] has joined #lnd     
08:47 < drexl> but not with the one I am trying to pay
08:47 <@molz> did you send a push amount to those two nodes?
08:47 < drexl> yes     
08:47 <@molz> oh so you they have "some" channels, but not with the ones you try to send money to, and probably people they have channels with don't have channels with the nodes you're trying to pay
08:48 <@molz> it's kinda complicated so i think it would be best to learn from basic steps first
08:53 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
08:53 < drexl> well in a network you should be able to reach anyone at some point maybe I was just unlucky and no route exists for my payment with enough balance
08:57 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
08:57 -!- drz_ [~drz@76-211-118-122.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
08:58 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
08:58 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] 34ro opened pull request #565: Add pagination options to listchaintxns (master...add-pagination-to-listchaintxns) https://git.io/vNTSw
08:59 <@molz> drexl, there's no luck, either LN works because of logics and sound tech or not, there's no lucks or miracles
09:00 <@molz> drexl, if you set up your two nodes and have channels with yalls, bitrefill, starblocks, and a bunch of randos, but your two nodes can't send payments to each other, then you can complain
09:02 -!- z [5631f501@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.49.245.1] has joined #lnd     
09:02 < drexl> the nodes I connected to can all have 0 local balance in all of their channels and I could be unable to send any transaction through them, that's unlucky
09:02 -!- z is now known as Guest46371     
09:06 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
09:11 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
09:19 -!- Douhet [~Douhet@unaffiliated/douhet] has joined #lnd     
09:22 -!- BubbleWater [~Mutter@221.124.28.53] has quit [Quit: Mutter: www.mutterirc.com]     
09:32 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
09:36 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd     
09:37 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
09:42 < sparcy> So I got a few test servers up. Was wondering if there is a way to change my alias?
09:42 < sparcy> Can see some servers have names like "cyclopes" and what not.
09:45 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@internet-95-159-200-225.narocnik.mobitel.si] has joined #lnd     
09:50 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #lnd     
10:02 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@internet-95-159-200-225.narocnik.mobitel.si] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
10:05 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
10:10 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
10:27 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
10:36 < zyp> roasbeef, so, I did a complete do-over of my lnd setup today, still same behavior as yesterday, so I collected info and made a small writeup: https://paste.jvnv.net/view/3muQQ
10:37 < zyp> hope this makes it possible to figure out what's going on
10:41 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
11:20 -!- subz [c4340203@gateway/web/freenode/ip.196.52.2.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
11:20 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:22 -!- subz [c4340203@gateway/web/freenode/ip.196.52.2.3] has joined #lnd     
11:34 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
11:36 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
11:45 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has joined #lnd     
11:47 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
12:06 < haakonn> setting up my first lnd. i keep getting "EOF" from all nodes it tries to connect to, and "Backing off peer bootstrapper to 30s", then 1m, then 2m etc. expected?
12:10 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
12:13 <@molz> haakonn, did you get the latest commit?
12:16 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gcrihweqagfrhhtl] has joined #lnd     
12:21 < haakonn> molz:  yes, updated today
12:23 < haakonn> note i don't have port 9735 open, nor have i set my external ip
12:24 < haakonn> oh, i tried again and now it seems to do lots of stuff :) maybe it works
12:24 <@molz> do you have your btcd fully synced?
12:24 < haakonn> yes, to testnet
12:25 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit []     
12:25 < haakonn> it looks like it worked now though
12:25 < haakonn> it sends pings and receives pongs and stuff
12:27 <@molz> yes then it's working
12:27 <@molz> now you can connect to some nodes and open channels with them :)
12:28 <@molz> haakonn, i have a list of some nodes here:  https://paste.ee/p/tV5Q9#vdboeIFdBecRVODWFQ1a38XJfrCGVntb
12:29 <@molz> with lnd on commandline, you have to do : lncli connect <node key:IP> first before you do  "lncli openchannel <node key> <amount> <push amount> 
12:29 <@molz> "     
12:30 < Veggen> molz: running lnd with bitcoind backend..is it safe to upgrade stuff, etc? or will it be merged to main branch soonish?
12:30 <@molz> Veggen, don't upgrade it yet
12:31 < Veggen> ok.     
12:31 < haakonn> thanks molz!
12:32 <@molz> np      
12:52 < Veggen> molz: What's the reason for not upgrading now? ;)
12:52 <@molz> Veggen, you know if you run lnd with bitcoind, it's a patch, right? 
12:53 <@molz> so if the patch is not updated, then we don't update yet
12:53 <@molz> this is being worked on until otherwise 
12:53 < Veggen> molz: makes sense. Sorry my impatience.
12:54 <@molz> you can keep testing it and report to alex if you find any issues or post the issues on the repo
12:55 <@molz> the last time i updated my node it stopped working with bitcoind 
12:55 <@molz> then i had to downgrade to the patch 
12:56 < Veggen> mmm, think I'll actually chose keeping a working node and learn more about lightning protocol.
12:57 < Veggen> But, btw. I was thinking about the "counter-party-risk" issues/FUD.
12:58 < Veggen> And I have some ideas of sound advices, strategies for minimizing risk, etc...(even though I think the risk is overrated, the issues will always be brought up...)
12:58 < Veggen> So I was thinking: The risk is only if someone submits an old balance.
12:59 < zyp> which risk?
12:59 < Veggen> zyp: lightning works by updating pre-signed commit transactions. There is a slight risk that someone might transmit an old balance....
13:00 < zyp> yes, and that is mitigated by timelocks
13:00 < Veggen> zyp: there are measures and very strong disadvantage to do so, but unless it is 100% impossible, someone will always use it as an argument.
13:00 < Veggen> zyp: I know, but there's still a >0 percent chance.
13:01 < Veggen> much safer than credit cards, I believe. But people will be people and FUD will be FUD :)
13:01 < Veggen> so, my personal 100% safe strategy would be:
13:02 < Veggen> Create a very large channel funded from your side. Preferably even backed by a hardware wallet. Only ever send from it (might be ways to receive in a safe enough way, will need to think :))
13:03 < zyp> when a channel is updated, the older HTLC is invalidated by revealing the preimage, so that if an outdated HTLC is published, you can spend the counterparty's output from it
13:04 < Veggen> zyp: I know, but that means I or someone else (yes, I know about watcher nodes) needs to watch, there has to be funds for an unlimited on-chain fee, etc..(repeating fud here, this is *not* my opinion. But it is being used as an argument)
13:04 < zyp> the one-way channels you describe mitigates the need to watch the chain for any cheating attempts, it's the trick the android eclair app uses
13:04 < zyp> but that also means you won't be useful as a routing node, which limits the usefulness of LN
13:04 < Veggen> Now, always try to fund from this more or less in sync with your spending.
13:05 < Veggen> zyp: I was thinking of funding a spending-LN wallet from it.
13:05 < Veggen> zyp: Always paying more or less in sync with my spendings from it.
13:05 < Veggen> Remember: they can always only submit an old balance on both sides.
13:06 < Veggen> zyp: that way, the risk is only the difference between my last funding transaction and my last spending transactions, or some value like that :)
13:06 < zyp> you're suggesting to have a one-way channel to yourself?
13:07 < Veggen> zyp: well, obviously it has to go into a spending channel. So via the network.
13:07 < Veggen> zyp: but sending only to myself.
13:07 <@molz> i still don't understand how someone can submit "an old state"?
13:08 < zyp> molz, are you being pedantic, or what?
13:08 < Veggen> zyp: And if I were to spend 0.2 BTC on a new super flat-screen TV, I'd *first* send 0.18 BTC to it, then spend 0.2. Then if they submit old state, it'll gain them *nothing*.
13:08 <@molz> im serious, i haven't read up on it or nor do i understand how that works
13:09 < Veggen> zyp: or less than nothing.
13:09 <@molz> once i tried to steal the money back to myself but it didn't work
13:10 < Veggen> molz: it's gonna be hard to do, but the risk is not 0 :) So it'll always be used as an argument.
13:10 <@molz> ok so how do you submit an old state?
13:10 < zyp> molz, a channel is based on a multisig output which each party holds a key to, the current state of the channel exists as an unpublished transaction paying each party the currently owed amount
13:11 < zyp> molz, every time you transact over a channel, you both sign a new transaction replacing the previous channel state
13:11 <@molz> ok, so far so good..
13:11 < Veggen> ...cheating, you will need to just submit a previous one. Right? 
13:12 < zyp> to close the channel, the final channel state gets published to the blockchain and gives each party their individual balances
13:12 <@molz> ya, got that
13:12 < Veggen> molz: won't work if someone catches you in the act. Like your counterparty. So it needs to be done while channel is down.
13:12 < zyp> now, one party could attempt to cheat by submitting an older state, where he had more funds on their side
13:12 <@molz> but how can he "submit an older state"?
13:13 <@molz> where does he get it?
13:13 < Veggen> molz: by keeping on to it. Modified software?
13:13 < zyp> both parties always have a signed copy of the latest state transaction
13:13 <@molz> hm ..ok
13:13 < zyp> and you can't force your counterparty to forget an older state
13:14 <@molz> but he can't get this settled once it goes on-chain
13:14 < Veggen> molz: he can push it on-chain, right?
13:14 <@molz> sure but how can he push the old state onchain?
13:15 < Veggen> molz: the chain doesn't know that it's old.
13:15 < zyp> just by publishing it to the bitcoin network, it's a valid bitcoin transaction
13:15 <@molz> i thought that every tx on LN makes the channel updated and the final state is the only state to be pushed onchain
13:16 < zyp> unless somebody attempts to cheat, that is the case
13:16 < zyp> when somebody attempts to cheat, they are effectively making an outdated state the final state
13:17 <@molz> then you just have to push the final state on your side?
13:17 < Veggen> molz: yes.
13:17 < Veggen> but this means you have to be online at all time.
13:18 < Veggen> ...but there are watcher-nodes you can outsource that too.
13:18 < zyp> no, that'll be a doublespend, and even with RBF there's no guarantee that your transaction will be the one that gets mined
13:19 -!- cotix [~cotix@lithium.student.utwente.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:19 < zyp> LN employs a timelock to create a safer mechanism instead
13:19 < Veggen> And there is penalties - losing all your funds in the channel - force commiting an old transaction.
13:19 < Veggen> zyp: but you still have to submit a penalty transaction before timelock runs out.
13:19 <@molz> Veggen, you mean the cheater gets penalized by losing all his fund?
13:19 < Veggen> molz: yes.
13:20 < zyp> the cheater's output has two spending conditions
13:20 < zyp> one is timelocked, i.e. the cheater has to wait for the timelock to expire to be able to respend it
13:20 -!- IniGit [~Gernot@62-178-56-62.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
13:20 < zyp> and the other one, you can spend as a punishment
13:21 < Veggen> hmm, you obviously have a more complete knowledge than me about the inner details so far, zyp :)
13:21 < Veggen> (I knew the outcome, though)
13:21 -!- IniGit [~Gernot@62.178.56.62] has joined #lnd     
13:21 < zyp> more complete, maybe, but not complete :)
13:21 < zyp> I've tried reading the BOLTs, but I didn't grasp all of it
13:22 < Veggen> molz: the outcome is that if someone is caught cheating, he'll lose *his* funds in the channel.
13:22 < Veggen> molz: and it's actually a pretty easy job to watch for cheating, and it can be outsourced too.
13:23 < Veggen> (i.e. you can have more watchers, in case your phone burns up for example)
13:23 < haakonn> are outsourced watchers compensated for their trouble?
13:24 < Veggen> haakonn: actually, the penalty transaction includes a bounty, taken from the cheaters funds.
13:24 < haakonn> ooh nice!
13:24 < Veggen> but I guess we won't know if they'll take a fee for the job too.
13:24 < haakonn> what about a penality for the watcher if he doesn't do his job? or is this guarded against by having multiple watchers?
13:24 < zyp> personally, I don't think cheating will be the biggest concern, I'm more worried about private key theft due to the need to have private keys in a hot wallet
13:25 < Veggen> haakonn: I guess multiple watchers is the answer.
13:25 < Veggen> but why wouldn't he do the job when he gets a bounty?
13:26 < haakonn> maybe he doesn't take it seriously, his system is unstable, he's colluding with the cheater etc
13:27 < Veggen> I think in reality this will not be a large problem. The disadvantage of cheating is just to large. And noone will know if there are more watchers.
13:27 < zyp> with multiple watchers, it'll be a bounty hunt where the first to catch one gets a bounty
13:28 < haakonn> agree
13:28 < Veggen> But my point: This will be used as an argument. I was thinking of ways to minimizing the risks too.
13:28 < Veggen> proper ways to behave if you are truly paranoid, etc :)
13:28 < haakonn> you have to think these things through :) but LN is very clever
13:29 < Veggen> Like always fill up channel before you spend, not otherwise.
13:29 < zyp> Veggen, I'm still not convinced of your argument
13:30 < Veggen> zyp: I'm not sure it will be necessary, either :) But it'd make it not really be any funds to steal, should you even try.
13:30 < zyp> if you can send money to your own channel and then spend it right away, you have just introduced a pointless extra step which will take more hops to achieve the same
13:31 < Veggen> zyp: uh, no...think it through. What old states could the cheater spend?
13:32 < zyp> if I understood you correctly, let's say you are node A and has channels x and y with node B, to pay yourself you'll do something like Ax -> B -> Ay, then to buy something you do Ay -> B -> C
13:32 < zyp> I don't see any benefit over simply doing Ax -> B -> C
13:33 < zyp> if I misread you, please clarify
13:33 < Veggen> zyp: ok. I guess there's no real benefit compared to use a spend-only channel.
13:33 < zyp> B doesn't have to be one node, btw., it can be any path through LN between Ax and Ay
13:34 < zyp> yes     
13:34 < Veggen> zyp: sure, but the only risk *you* have is to the other party of your channel.
13:34 < zyp> if x is spend only, you still have to close it when it depletes and open a new channel
13:35 < zyp> and using spend only channels is fine, as long as you get to make enough payments on them to make it worth the open/close fees
13:35 < zyp> but throwing y into the mix improves nothing
13:36 < Veggen> zyp: Sure. but say your channel from Ax is a trusted one. Say, to someone you have a customer relationship with.
13:36 < Veggen> an exchange, or some other service.
13:36 < zyp> then why does it have to be spend only?
13:37 < Veggen> it don't, actually. I was getting there... :)
13:37 < Veggen> ok. you could get by with having only such trusted channels.
13:38 < Veggen> but I was thinking of trusted channel from secure place (like hardware wallet), then a mobile spending wallet.
13:38 < Veggen> but ok. It could be that it doesn't make much sense :)
13:39 < zyp> the thing is, funds that comes in over one channel can only go back out through the same channel
13:39 < Veggen> mmm, yes.
13:39 < zyp> (without closing it and opening another)
13:39 < Veggen> ok. need to think more. now, need to walk the dog :)
13:47 -!- ninjahamstah [~ninjahams@2001:bc8:4400:2800::4b29] has quit [Changing host]     
13:47 -!- ninjahamstah [~ninjahams@unaffiliated/ninjamastah] has joined #lnd     
13:56 < sparcy> See SetAlias is in the RPC interface. Reading this https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/273 it seems it can even be set in lnd.conf
13:57 < sparcy> tired every combo of alias=hello etc in lnd.conf. No dice. How do I set a custom alias in the conf?
13:58 < lndbot1> <djseeds> You can’t yet
13:58 < lndbot1> <djseeds> It’s close though: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/pull/467
13:59 < sparcy> thanks. Would explain why I found a lot of not working "setalias" in the code =)
14:04 < haakonn> i opened a channel, and the tx is now confirmed, but nothing shows in 'listchannels'
14:05 < zyp> haakonn, check pendingchannels
14:05 < zyp> it needs more than one confirmation before it's considered open
14:06 < haakonn> ah, didn't know about pendingchannels :) there it is
14:07 <@molz> it takes 3 blocks for the channel to be active
14:07 < haakonn> 'listchannels' reads like it should show all channels, including pending
14:07 <@molz> haakonn, submit your idea :)
14:08 < haakonn> i barely know what i'm doing, maybe i'll submit some ideas later :P
14:16 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has joined #lnd     
14:23 < sparcy> this patch gives alias =) https://paste.debian.net/1003815/
14:24 < sparcy> bluewall thx
14:26 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has joined #lnd     
14:30 < simlay> I can't get payments to lncast or starblocks to work.
14:31 < simlay> "payment_error": "unable to route payment to destination: UnknownNextPeer"
14:33 < haakonn> i was just getting something similar: ""payment_error": "unable to route payment to destination: TemporaryChannelFailure: unable to de-obfuscate onion failure"
14:33 < haakonn> i'm running "lncli payinvoice --pay_req=lightning:lntb19u1p..."
14:34 < haakonn> no actually i'm running lncli payinvoice --pay_req=lntb19u1p... - the lightning: prefix gave another error
14:36 < lndbot1> <djseeds> simlay: LNCast has very few channels open right now. You could always open a channel directly to it or use htlc.me. Also a channel to htlc.me should be sufficient.
14:39 < haakonn> ok, the starblocks payment did not work, but i was able to buy a read at yalls! ln achieved
14:39 <@molz> haakonn, you can just type: lncli payinvoice lntb19u1p...
14:39 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@internet-95-159-200-225.narocnik.mobitel.si] has joined #lnd     
14:39 < haakonn> molz:  also tried that, but same error
14:40 <@molz> haakonn, can you paste the invoice here?
14:40 < haakonn> maybe an integration issue with c-lightning, because cdecker got the same error here: https://github.com/cdecker/lightning-integration/issues/4
14:40 < haakonn> molz:  lightning:lntb19u1pd9znv4pp5p89ldxadhqchlnm4hmh3lklsyers6k66fpsrawd7svh6tg99tlwsdp8xys9xcmpd3sjqsmgd9czq3njv9c8qatrvd5kumc33vqhfv4p82p5mkrj6pzs9tken23csvxgj0gtxt939h0v2yzm7n9wnzlutrwfalhegesa0t2und62z2dulafmjr0yxsfdvycmr366uqq86x232
14:40 <@molz> oh you're running a c-l node?
14:40 < haakonn> no, i'm running lnd. but perhaps starblocks is on c-lightning
14:41 <@molz> no     
14:41 <@molz> it's on eclair
14:41 < haakonn> strange then
14:42 < Veggen> paying to starblocks has had a lot of problems...
14:42 < Veggen> I think.
14:43 < haakonn> someone paid for my coffee now :)
14:43 <@molz> haakonn, my eclair wallet just paid for it but lnd node couldn't
14:43 < haakonn> interesting!
14:44 < haakonn> i still get the same error from lnd. worth reporting?
14:45 <@molz> well i think the eclair devs know 
14:46 < haakonn> ah, ok. figured maybe it's an lnd issue
14:53 -!- sovjet [~sovjet@internet-95-159-200-225.narocnik.mobitel.si] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
14:58 -!- cryptosoap [~cryptosoa@gateway/tor-sasl/cryptosoap] has quit [Quit: cryptosoap]     
15:18 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:19 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has joined #lnd     
15:21 -!- pioklo [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:25 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
15:31 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
15:39 -!- sparcy [~sparkky@91.90.44.27] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:46 -!- Eetsi123 [~Eetsi123@85-76-106-188-nat.elisa-mobile.fi] has joined #lnd     
15:48 -!- qxt [~qxxt@unaffiliated/qxt] has joined #lnd     
15:52 -!- Eetsi123 [~Eetsi123@85-76-106-188-nat.elisa-mobile.fi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:54 -!- glassmus is now known as kjellberg     
15:54 < qxt> Have had the "web client" working fine with --no-macaroons on simnet. When I tried using macaroons I get "expected 1 macaroon, got 0" is there some flag I need to pass to get this working?
15:55 < qxt> a path or something?
15:57 < qxt> yes this does exist ~/.lnd/admin.macaroon
16:11 -!- electrumuser [~galileopy@181.121.86.83] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:16 -!- epic [sid37137@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nvnsmpkzbgyaiwul] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
16:22 <@roasbeef> qxt: you need to also start lnd w/o that flag so it generate the macaroons 
16:22 <@roasbeef> simlay: that error means a peer in the line of the route wasn't there 
16:23 <@roasbeef> haakonn: do you have the logs for taht attempt? eclair generates some errors that lnd can't decoed at times 
16:23 <@roasbeef> drexl: there's real latencys, so things may not be superinstant, check the logs for the sends, it may have been retrynig in the backgroind 
16:23 <@roasbeef> drexl: max is 20 hops
16:25 -!- wxss [~user@94.242.219.107] has quit [Quit: leaving]     
16:25 <@roasbeef> also note that the eclair mobile app makes a channel to startblocks insta by default iirc
16:27 < drexl> roasbeef thanks but now I have another problem, I can't start the client it crashes
16:27 < drexl> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/567
16:28 <@roasbeef> there was a breaking db change in a recently merged commit, so if you were before then, you'll need to go back a commit or two, close out your channels, then update
16:38 < zyp> roasbeef, did you see my writeup of the tests I did today?
16:39 < zyp> still seeing same behavior as yesterday, and I hope I have more useful info to figure out what's going on now
16:41 < qxt> roasbeef, thx for the replay. I have started lnd without the --no-macaroons flag and I can see they are sitting there under ./lnd/ Thought it would be nice to see if I could get the "web client" working but it seems to complain with "expected 1 macaroon, got 0"
16:41 <@roasbeef> nope 
16:41 <@roasbeef> zyp: ^ 
16:41 < zyp> roasbeef, https://paste.jvnv.net/view/3muQQ
16:41 <@roasbeef> qxt: make sure lnd actually generated the macaroons 
16:41 < qxt> roasbeef, they are there
16:42 < qxt> roasbeef, but looking at the READ.md in the web client it seems that there is no support for macaroons
16:42 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
16:42 <@roasbeef> ah yeh not sure if the web cleitn has been developed lately 
16:43 <@roasbeef> zyp: can you desribe the issue plainly? 
16:43 < qxt> roasbeef, that whippersnapper Google hipster stuff is not for a old fart like me anyway =)
16:43 <@roasbeef> if you make channels with the privae flag, they won't be advertised 
16:44 < zyp> I've never made any channels with the private flag.
16:44 < zyp> https://paste.jvnv.net/view/UcNlr <- there's no --private flag in lines 58 and 62 here
16:46 <@roasbeef> yeh looks like your channels aren't advertised 
16:49 <@roasbeef> did you restart the nodes mid flight? are you running btcd with the txindex flag active? 
16:49 <@roasbeef> in your example, who's mining the blocks? are the btcd nodes connected to each other? 
16:49 < zyp> they're all running against the same btcd node on testnet
16:49 <@roasbeef> thx for the detailed report btw 
16:50 <@roasbeef> is the node running with txindex active? 
16:50 < zyp> how do I check=
16:51 < zyp> IIRC btcd node is also created from the dockerfile in the lnd repo, so I assumed it is running with the appropriate settings
16:51 <@roasbeef> heh it actually isn't 
16:51 <@roasbeef> easy fix :p 
16:51 <@roasbeef> the proper flag is --txindex if you're running it in isolation 
16:51 <@roasbeef> need to add a runtime check 
16:52 < zyp> isolation?
16:52 <@roasbeef> as in outside of docker 
16:53 <@roasbeef> but yeh the container atm is wrong as it doesn't start with txindex 
16:53 < zyp> yeah
16:53 < zyp> it's running «btcd --testnet --debuglevel=info --rpcuser=devuser --rpcpass=devpass --datadir=/data --logdir=/data --rpccert=/rpc/rpc.cert --rpckey=/rpc/rpc.key --rpclisten=0.0.0.0»
16:54 < zyp> so, when --txindex is missing, nodes can't confirm properly if channels are open?
16:56 <@molz> roasbeef, so --txindex will always be with LND and Eclair, right? no way to get rid of it ? 
16:57 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
16:57 < qxt> roasbeef, is this still the case? "Lnd uses the P-521 curve for its certificates but NodeJS gRPC module is only compatible with certificates using the P-256 curve"
17:00 <@roasbeef> molz: nah we know hwo to get rid of it, just not implemented yet 
17:00 <@molz> ah ok, cool
17:00 <@roasbeef> zyp: it can't proerply detect that a channel already has a partial number of confirmations 
17:00 <@roasbeef> that's just an implementation detail tho 
17:01 < zyp> but should that cause the problem I'm seeing?
17:02 < zyp> anyway, I'm building the index now, so if that's all it takes to fix it, it should be quick to check
17:02 <@roasbeef> yep your issues seem to be a symptom of not having that 
17:03 <@roasbeef> provoostenator: you wanna log this channel too? :) 
17:03 <@roasbeef> applied for botbot a while back, but nada 
17:12 -!- shadowx [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]     
17:13 -!- theone [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
17:24 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] Roasbeef force-pushed master from ac89bab to 882b131: https://git.io/vDRYr
17:24 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 000a83b Brian KimJohnson: server: add bootstrap peers to  persistent peers for conn retry...
17:24 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master a5f7c48 Johan T. Halseth: lntest/harness: let OpenChannel take 'private' parameter
17:24 -github-lnd:#lnd- lnd/master 1f19694 Johan T. Halseth: integration tests: add test for private channels...
17:26 < qxt> How to I set the wallet back to its default passwd?
17:26 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:27 <@roasbeef> if you run with --nowalletencryption 
17:27 <@roasbeef> it uses the default password
17:29 < qxt> roasbeef, tired to set that in the lnd.conf as a bool but nope
17:29 -!- theone [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
17:30 < qxt> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/config.go
17:30 < qxt> I already set a passwd. Could that be the problem?
17:32 <@roasbeef> oh yeh, you can't go backwrds 
17:32 < qxt> np thx
17:34 < zyp> roasbeef, starting the nodes after restarting btcd with --txindex appears to have solved the announcement problem
17:34 <@roasbeef> nice
17:35 < zyp> one of the nodes seems to still be misbehaving somehow though, not sure exactly how yet, maybe it's just in a silly state
17:41 < zyp> uh oh, I just made two of the nodes segfault
17:42 -!- tony___ [65b7a5cd@gateway/web/freenode/ip.101.183.165.205] has joined #lnd     
17:42 -!- tony___ [65b7a5cd@gateway/web/freenode/ip.101.183.165.205] has quit [Client Quit]     
17:45 <@roasbeef> orly? 
17:46 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
17:48 < zyp> logs from A and B, respectively: https://paste.jvnv.net/view/WpiFr https://paste.jvnv.net/view/gRVgR
17:48 < zyp> I restarted B at 01:37:27 or so, and that resulted in them both segfaulting
17:49 <@roasbeef> ah yeh that's a known bug 
17:50 <@roasbeef> can you pst that i: 
17:50 <@roasbeef> 2018-01-07 01:37:29.964 [ERR] HSWC: unable to process onion packet: sphinx packet replay attempted
17:50 <@roasbeef> post in: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/528
17:51 <@roasbeef> have a good hunch, but just got back from traveling and haven't been abnle to dig in yet 
17:54 <@roasbeef> do you think you can try to reproduce that, but running with trace logging? 
17:55 < zyp> sure, do I just change the debuglevel to trace?
17:56 -!- creslin [~textual@5.32.134.14] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
17:59 <@roasbeef> yeh 
18:00 < zyp> let's see if I can reproduce, they started fine without crashing
18:05 <@roasbeef> cool lemmie know, if able to reproduce then will also be able to verify that the fix I have in mind propeerly works 
18:07 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has joined #lnd     
18:07 < zyp> doesn't look like it's immediately reproducible
18:10 <@roasbeef> yeh one of those ones that's difficult to come by 
18:10 <@roasbeef> but collecitng logs helps to put the pieces back together eventually 
18:10 < zyp> https://paste.jvnv.net/view/FqWvO <- this is what I saw and did immediately before restarting node B
18:11 < zyp> that pending htlc was a payment I tried to send that seemed to get stuck
18:12 < booyah> zyp: if you found a problem in LN, please best report to #lnd 
18:12 < booyah> wait. lol nevermind. thought Im on bitcoin
18:12 < zyp> haha :)
18:14 < zyp> anyway, it's past 3AM here now, I'll go catch some sleep now and play more around with this tomorrow
18:15 -!- epic [sid37137@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hyzczrwbabuyzctz] has joined #lnd     
18:18 <@roasbeef> kek 
18:18 <@roasbeef> fsho
18:23 -!- theone [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lnd     
18:32 -!- theone [~theone@c-24-5-154-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
18:50 -!- IniGit [~Gernot@62.178.56.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
19:27 -!- qxt [~qxxt@unaffiliated/qxt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
19:52 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has joined #lnd     
19:53 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
19:55 -!- wamde [67fcc863@gateway/web/freenode/ip.103.252.200.99] has joined #lnd     
19:55 < wamde> so I have a lnd node running now, and I created a channel from the public faucet
19:55 < wamde> a few hours later, that channel seems to have been closed
19:56 < wamde> 1/ why would the faucet do that? 2/ how can I know what happened exactly by looking at my lnd logs?
19:57 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
19:58 <@molz> probably because it needed to be updated
19:59 <@molz> lnd is in testing, expect things to change all the time and unexpectedly
20:00 <@molz> and before you update your lnd node, you need to close all channels
20:01 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lnd     
20:02 < wamde> ok makes sense
20:02 < wamde> can I see in the logs that the channel was closed by the other party?
20:02 < wamde> would the faucet be configured to send the transacation on the mainchain (testnet in y case)?
20:02 < wamde> my*     
20:03 < wamde> and can you explain why closing all channels before updating is required?
20:05 <@molz> you can look in your logs
20:24 -!- yamaguchi [~jjkropp@165.16.66.180] has joined #lnd     
20:24 -!- yamaguchi [~jjkropp@165.16.66.180] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:27 -!- shownuff [2f2ae8cc@gateway/web/freenode/ip.47.42.232.204] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
20:30 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:31 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd     
20:39 -!- simlay [~simlay@gateway/tor-sasl/simlay] has joined #lnd     
20:40 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:40 -!- wamde [67fcc863@gateway/web/freenode/ip.103.252.200.99] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
20:47 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lnd     
20:51 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:16 -!- sdfgsdf [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has joined #lnd     
21:16 -!- sdfgsdfg [~sdfgsdfg@unaffiliated/sdfgsdfg] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
21:17 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]     
21:18 -!- bird_ [~bird@104.236.31.121] has joined #lnd     
21:23 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lnd     
21:25 -!- ThomasV [~thomasv@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #lnd     
21:33 < theone> hey everyone, how can I contribute to lnd?
21:44 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
21:46 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] wilmerpaulino closed pull request #562: support uri in getinfo response (master...getinfo-uri) https://git.io/vNJ4T
21:55 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] wilmerpaulino reopened pull request #562: support uri in getinfo response (master...getinfo-uri) https://git.io/vNJ4T
22:09 -!- ajunas [adefe818@gateway/web/freenode/ip.173.239.232.24] has joined #lnd     
22:09 < ajunas> so I have an interesting issue
22:09 < ajunas> i generally use VPN on my phone
22:10 < ajunas> installed eclair, got some testnet coins, opened a channel with my LND node
22:10 < ajunas> turned off the VPN, now there is issues with the connection to my node, 
22:15 < ajunas> seems to be working now
22:15 < ajunas> i guess nodes can account for IP changes
22:36 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gcrihweqagfrhhtl] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
22:39 -!- Styil [Styil@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/styil] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
22:43 -!- jerbil [uid28187@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-faunzlhnvfeafbri] has joined #lnd     
23:05 -!- theone [~theone@108-221-20-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
23:08 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] wilmerpaulino opened pull request #569: docs: clarify how to generate protobuf definitions (master...protobuf-docs) https://git.io/vNk4D
23:18 -!- alevchuk [45b5f9e6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.181.249.230] has joined #lnd     
23:20 < ajunas> is it safe to say bitcoins transacted in LN are fungible?
23:24 < alevchuk> i started an autopilot lnd on testnet3, there are 10 channels open with 1.5btc total, yet no payments flowing through my lnd node even after several hours. is this expected?
23:31 <@molz> sure
23:35 < ajunas> im ridiculously excited for LN
23:35 < alevchuk> how to give autopilot a test run?
23:37 < subz> same here ajunas
23:38 < ajunas> the more i read about it the more possibilities I discover, it reminds me of when I first was learning about bitcoin
23:47 -!- alevchuk [45b5f9e6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.181.249.230] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
23:48 <@molz> i have a list of some nodes that you can open channels with and might see more traffic: https://paste.ee/p/tV5Q9#vdboeIFdBecRVODWFQ1a38XJfrCGVntb
23:50 <@molz> i haven't added this site but it's really cool to see it:  http://zigzag.bitlum.io/LTC/22a56bdc-f3e8-4c95-9fad-6c0f2e14703d
23:51 <@molz> i have an LTC testnet address, i pay some BTC and in return i get LTC going to my wallet
23:53 <@molz> here's the tweet for it:  https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/949434763474948096 i guess you have to register with Bitgo site to use their wallets if you don't have a LTC wallet