--- Day changed Wed Jun 20 2018 00:07 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p5DDB62C8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #lnd 00:07 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p5DDB62C8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Changing host] 00:07 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has joined #lnd 00:11 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 00:15 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:50 -!- Pioklo_ [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has joined #lnd 00:56 -!- richard87 [~richard87@237.92-221-98.customer.lyse.net] has joined #lnd 01:16 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #lnd 01:16 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 01:22 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:23 < murrayn> [lncli] unable to generate seed: rpc error: code = Unimplemented desc = unknown service lnrpc.WalletUnlocker 01:23 < murrayn> when running 'lncli create' 01:23 < murrayn> any suggestions? 01:34 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 01:39 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 01:39 -!- Pioklo_ [Pioklo@ip-91.246.70.194.skyware.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 01:55 < AlienTrooper> molz lolz 02:14 -!- bitconner [~conner@230.7.249.5.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #lnd 02:17 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@user-94-254-147-70.play-internet.pl] has joined #lnd 02:18 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 02:33 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 02:37 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 02:46 -!- tumi [tumi@u.nix.is] has joined #lnd 03:26 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:26 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #lnd 03:35 -!- bitconner [~conner@230.7.249.5.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 03:41 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@user-94-254-147-70.play-internet.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:45 -!- jchia_1 [~jchia@58.32.32.237] has joined #lnd 03:54 -!- bitconner [~conner@230.7.249.5.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #lnd 04:12 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:20 -!- bitconner [~conner@230.7.249.5.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 04:32 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@095-129-175-233-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has joined #lnd 04:35 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 04:37 <@roasbeef> murrayn: make sure you don't have --noencryptwallet set 04:46 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has joined #lnd 04:53 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 04:58 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 05:03 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 05:34 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@118-40.echostar.pl] has joined #lnd 06:09 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 06:28 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 06:31 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 07:17 -!- attilio [~attilio@cm-84.212.250.219.getinternet.no] has joined #lnd 07:26 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has joined #lnd 07:26 -!- eamonnw [~eamonnw@iceland.sdf.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 07:27 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:33 -!- eamonnw [~eamonnw@iceland.sdf.org] has joined #lnd 07:37 -!- j9m [~j9m@47.157.125.55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:39 -!- jcsmesquita [~jcsmesqui@a89-155-142-146.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 07:40 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 07:43 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #lnd 07:47 -!- jcsmesquita [~jcsmesqui@a89-155-142-146.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [] 07:48 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has joined #lnd 07:49 < molz> PatBoy, hey r u here? 07:55 < ivegotasthma> I've generated the go client stub, and I'm trying to connect to the LND, but the client doesn't have this method. 07:55 < ivegotasthma> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/c1a1b3ba3d3e201437c343da544eb592ba267fca/cmd/lncli/main.go#L63 07:56 < ivegotasthma> Did I generate the client incorrectly because there is no such function and I'm not sure how to connect to the server without it. 07:56 < molz> not sure what you're doing 07:56 < molz> are you trying to install LND? 07:57 < molz> here's the installation guide: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/docs/INSTALL.md 07:57 < ivegotasthma> molz: no, I've already installed it, I want to use grpc to talk to the daemon 07:58 < molz> ah ok 07:58 < ivegotasthma> here's my code: https://dpaste.de/eOsU 08:00 < ivegotasthma> the go code that I generate from the proto file is missing the NewLightningClient function, but the generator seems to be correct, I'm wondering if I'm missing something 08:00 -!- chris2000 [a2d58515@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.213.133.21] has joined #lnd 08:04 -!- chris2000 [a2d58515@gateway/web/freenode/ip.162.213.133.21] has quit [Client Quit] 08:07 <@roasbeef> ivegotasthma: you can ust use our cient stub 08:07 <@roasbeef> no need to re-gen if you don't need to 08:07 <@roasbeef> you can also just use the lnrpc gen_protos.sh 08:38 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@107.147.175.194] has joined #lnd 08:43 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@107.147.175.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 08:45 < RusAlex> hi crypto wizards. 08:45 < RusAlex> there is LN node bitmex exists 08:46 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 08:46 < RusAlex> is it really bitmex exchange node and I can use it with their site ? 08:46 < RusAlex> or they test something in a closed environment 08:47 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 08:49 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 08:49 < lndbot> Doubt it 08:52 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has joined #lnd 09:00 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:02 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@178.165.128.81.wireless.dyn.drei.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 09:03 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@104.137.194.255] has joined #lnd 09:05 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has joined #lnd 09:06 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 09:11 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 09:22 < molz> even if the real bitmex has a Lightning node, not sure what you can do with it? 09:23 < molz> if they ever get on LN they would make a huge announcement on their site and show users how to use it but i doubt that can happen soon 09:32 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/saleemrashid] has joined #lnd 09:37 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:38 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 09:41 -!- melvster [~melvin@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:41 -!- melvster [~melvin@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #lnd 09:42 < RusAlex> molz: Im expecting when first exchange will do that 09:42 < RusAlex> do not know what stops them 09:43 < molz> a lot money involved and the infrastructures still being worked on 09:44 < RusAlex> LN needs time to be accepted by big players. only 22 BTC in the channels 09:47 -!- drrty2 [drrty@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/drrty] has joined #lnd 09:47 < BashCo_> it's nowhere ready for that yet. 09:50 -!- newuser__ [drrty@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/drrty] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 09:52 < CubicEarths> It will be a big day for BTC when a big exchange adds LN 09:53 -!- biknob [550b2582@gateway/web/freenode/ip.85.11.37.130] has joined #lnd 09:59 < biknob> Hey! Is there a way to make invoices invalid? Lets say I wanted to give Alice one invoice and Bob another, then Bob pays for his, and then I want Alice invoice to be invalid. Giving them same would not solve it since I dont know who paid for it. 10:20 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p3EE2D005.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #lnd 10:20 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p3EE2D005.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Changing host] 10:20 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has joined #lnd 10:25 -!- MrL [~hello@host86-144-8-191.range86-144.btcentralplus.com] has joined #lnd 10:28 < cjd[m]> bigger day when two of them add it ;) 10:36 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 11:22 < CubicEarths> cjd[m]: so true 11:24 < CubicEarths> although just one would suffice to allow for the user having custody of the btc and yet be able to fund their account instantly 11:24 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/saleemrashid] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.1] 11:59 -!- biknob [550b2582@gateway/web/freenode/ip.85.11.37.130] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 12:02 -!- savil [62cf5652@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.207.86.82] has joined #lnd 12:09 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:32 < ivegotasthma> I'm trying to connect through rpc to my lnd, but I'm getting a tls handshake error that I'm having trouble debugging. I know the cert the lnd is using and I'm loading it on the client. lnd doesn't give any debug output for the failure as well. 12:36 -!- savil [62cf5652@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.207.86.82] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:47 -!- yoink [~yoink@unaffiliated/yoink] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:48 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 12:49 < dome> ivegotasthma: what's the exact error you're seeing? And what rpc client are you using to connect with? Javascript? Go? 12:51 < ivegotasthma> I'm using Go, here's the error code https://dpaste.de/kOze/raw and here's my source (it's very short) https://dpaste.de/tjvt/raw 12:51 < ivegotasthma> dome 12:52 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 12:53 < ivegotasthma> here's a less noisy version of the source https://dpaste.de/UkTw/raw 12:55 < dome> hrm... off bat i don't know what the issue is hopefully i can help a little in a few 12:56 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 13:03 -!- camonz [~camonz@169.red-79-144-149.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #lnd 13:03 -!- yoink [~yoink@unaffiliated/yoink] has joined #lnd 13:04 < ivegotasthma> dome: I recreated my .lnd directory, the tls cert was regenerated and I could connect 13:13 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has joined #lnd 13:21 -!- Pieraniel [b21aa0ed@gateway/web/freenode/ip.178.26.160.237] has joined #lnd 13:24 < Pieraniel> Hey guys, i am trying to use Android App "Bitcoin Lightning Wallet" to open a channel with my lnd powered Raspberry Pi. The App keeps saying: "Data loss protection is not provided by this peer" Any suggestions? 13:25 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 13:31 < Pieraniel> Hey guys, i am trying to use Android App "Bitcoin Lightning Wallet" to open a channel with my lnd powered Raspberry Pi. The App keeps saying: "Data loss protection is not provided by this peer" Any suggestions? 13:36 < molz> Pieraniel, that wallet should be able to open channels to LND nodes 13:37 < molz> Pieraniel, is your lnd on the latest release or master? 13:41 -!- ChunkyPuffs [~ChunkyPuf@gateway/tor-sasl/chunkypuffs] has joined #lnd 13:42 < ChunkyPuffs> Hey can anybody answer this burning question? 13:42 < ChunkyPuffs> What happens if there was a double spend to initiate a lightning contract? 13:42 < ChunkyPuffs> What happens on lightning once this occurs? Does lightning know a double spend has occurred? 13:45 < ChunkyPuffs> maybe roasbeef is qualified to answer? :D 13:48 < molz> doublespend in what sense? like if you want to use RBF? 14:06 < ChunkyPuffs> molz, what's RBF? 14:06 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm not completely 100% on all features yet, so just let me know what it means 14:06 < molz> replace by fee 14:07 < ChunkyPuffs> Ah k, what's that for? Topping up channels? 14:08 < ChunkyPuffs> Gonna watch a vid on the topic 14:08 < ChunkyPuffs> Actually, I can't find one that isn't from Decentralized Thought, who is intentionally misinforming and misleading people. 14:08 < ChunkyPuffs> Can you educate me? 14:09 < ChunkyPuffs> Okay, this entirely unrelated to what I'm saying, I get it, RBF meaning submitting your transaction again to update the fee used, understood. 14:10 < ChunkyPuffs> So, molz, what I mean is an actual double spend on the network, an attack, what happens if lightning contracts are created and confed with this double spend? 14:10 < ChunkyPuffs> 51% attack double spend. 14:10 < ChunkyPuffs> Just hypothetically, what happens? Suddenly the entropy of Lightning isn't conserved. 14:11 < ChunkyPuffs> The Lightning node has then been scammed, like an exchange would be scammed in the case of a double spend, they have a balance they shouldn't have, what's the reaction from LND to such a thing? 14:12 < dome> trying to follow your attack vector.... I don't think a double spend like that is possible... all lightning is doing is agreeing upon a balance in the channel(obviously simplifying it) .... so if you want to send me 20 sats, you'll update the balance to reflect that sign it and i'll confirm... 14:14 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:15 < molz> i haven't seen any doublespend on LN txs, and RBF is not possible 14:16 < molz> even with eclair desktop which uses bitcoin core wallet and bitcoin core has RBF, i tried to use RBF on a funding channel but it's disabled 14:17 < molz> a funding channel tx* 14:18 < lndbot> clightning might be able to do it 14:22 < molz> alexbosworth, how? 14:22 < lndbot> Isn’t there some way to use a separate wallet with clightning to send to a funding address? 14:23 < molz> and if someone opens a channel to me, then he double spends it and sends the fund back to his wallet.. there's no contract and i got no harm 14:23 < molz> well clightning wallet is similar to lnd wallet i think 14:24 < lndbot> I don’t know first-hand but I’ve heard that you can fund a channel from an outside wallet 14:24 < molz> hm i haven't seen that, i'll have to ask them 14:26 < lndbot> Uses less block weight if you do it that way 14:27 < ChunkyPuffs> so, to clarify 14:27 < ChunkyPuffs> you can double spend into a contract, and get an LND balance, but can't close that channel and get the funds back 14:27 < ChunkyPuffs> but the LN balance will remain the same, and you'd have successfully frauded LN? 14:27 < dome> how can you double spend into a contract? 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> just simply 51% 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> 51% into a contract, is that possible? 14:28 < dome> 51% on the bitcoin network? 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> yes, just for complete hyperboly 14:28 < dome> well i mean if that's the case LN doesn't matter really 14:28 < dome> because i have control of the underlying settlement layer 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> Well it's kind of a real scenario 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> we live in a world with firewalls, and china has them. 14:28 < ChunkyPuffs> 51% doesn't have to be costly if 51% of miners geographically exist in china 14:29 < dome> but again, that's not an LN problem, it's a bitcoin problem 14:29 < dome> or whichever underlying blockchain 14:29 < ChunkyPuffs> literally disconnect a continent from the rest of the internet, and bam, you've got yourself a cheap 51% out of anyone's control but the govt 14:29 < ChunkyPuffs> yes, it's a bitcoin problem because of the fact that it is *not* asynchronous byzantine fault tolerant 14:30 < ChunkyPuffs> But here's the thing 14:30 < ChunkyPuffs> lightning network actually solves a lot of 51% attack problems, and general disruption 14:30 < ChunkyPuffs> the intent of frauding LN however, that's not solved 14:30 < ChunkyPuffs> but any network disruption is completely invisible on LN, since peer discovery IS asynchronous 14:31 < lndbot> If you’re worried about double spending, you could increase your confirmation requirement 14:31 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm not worried about it 14:31 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm just interested in what would happen 14:31 < lndbot> It should be a worry considering that Lightning doesn’t only run on Bitcoin but also potentially on chains where 51% attacks are very feasible 14:33 < ChunkyPuffs> I know it's not a worry, for the last time. 14:33 < ChunkyPuffs> But I want to know exactly how this is handled 14:33 < ChunkyPuffs> E.G, I double spend into a contract, I now have a LN balance. 14:33 < ChunkyPuffs> How does the entropy of LN work with this? 14:33 < dome> I just don't quite understand how you'd want to handle it on LN... LN SHOULD rely on the blockchain as a source of truth 14:34 < lndbot> Same thing if you double spend without any confirmations, the receiving side doesn’t get their coins and you get the goods 14:34 < ChunkyPuffs> I have a LN balance that I shouldn't have, now I spend it, what happens to the channel, what happens to the node I'm running on, how can I spend this fraudulent money without fucking up the spreadsheet so to speak. 14:34 < ChunkyPuffs> I don't want to "handle it on ln" 14:34 < PatBoy> molz i'm here now ! 14:34 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm asking what LN does, what actually occurs in code 14:35 < ChunkyPuffs> E.G I double spend into some contract on some shitcoin, say BTCP. 14:35 < molz> hey PatBoy i found out why/how i can use 'make' on windows :D 14:35 < ChunkyPuffs> BTCP lightning, I now have a lightning balance I shouldn't have, I go to some merchant store and buy some shirts. 14:35 < ChunkyPuffs> Now that I have bought those shirts, with a frauded LN balance, what's the consequence? Does the merchant get rekt? 14:35 < PatBoy> hahaha more simple to install a vmware machine with nux on it ^^ :P 14:36 < PatBoy> i think you can only use make on windows 10 machine 14:36 < lndbot> Whoever the channel peer is who thought they had a local balance loses that UTXO and so the balance recalculates to a lower balance 14:36 < molz> PatBoy, it's not because MS got 'make' into windows, the bastards still haven't done it, but because i had installed MinGW and forgot all about it 14:37 < ChunkyPuffs> alexbosworth, so you're frauding the node operator? 14:37 < molz> PatBoy, i'm wondering if you install MinGW on your win7 it can do the same 14:37 < lndbot> Whoever your peer is 14:37 < ChunkyPuffs> where the node operator is like frauding an exchange 14:37 < lndbot> They thought they had a local balance but that goes away 14:37 < ChunkyPuffs> peer? define 14:37 < ChunkyPuffs> in this case what's a peer 14:37 < lndbot> Peer meaning whoever you have a channel with 14:37 < ChunkyPuffs> so you're frauding the channel op? 14:37 < lndbot> Further connections they have don’t see anything happen 14:38 < ChunkyPuffs> so who loses money here, that's my question 14:38 < PatBoy> i think not because i have qt create installed on this machine with mingw installed for compiling c++ apps 14:38 < lndbot> The person you made a channel with 14:38 < PatBoy> maybe i can regive a look to it 14:38 < ChunkyPuffs> so.. some poor storer operator? 14:38 < ChunkyPuffs> this is really feasible too, jesus 14:38 < ChunkyPuffs> there's no mechanism in place to protect against this? 14:38 < PatBoy> i will try it soon.. i will be without internet for 3 days :O omg 14:38 < PatBoy> lol 14:38 < lndbot> Yeah, one option for operators is that they dynamically increase the amount they will accept over confs 14:39 < ChunkyPuffs> Which won't matter on a shit chain 14:39 < ChunkyPuffs> won't matter on a shitcoin chain 14:39 < lndbot> So at the start of a channel they accept $20 and then $40, $80, etc 14:39 < lndbot> I agree, if the chain is terrible then Lightning is not appropriate 14:39 < ChunkyPuffs> Interesting. 14:40 < lndbot> The real issue is that you can’t build a decentralized system on top of a centralized one 14:40 < lndbot> If the chain can easily be 51% attacked then it is centralized and useless for decentralized commerce 14:41 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 14:42 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #lnd 14:44 < ChunkyPuffs> Lmao alexbosworth, so, okay 14:45 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm a store operator, someone doesn't like me 14:45 < ChunkyPuffs> I use BTCP, I accept BTCP. 14:45 < ChunkyPuffs> So they can take my money away if I have a channel open? 14:45 < ChunkyPuffs> They can literally fraud me, the store operator, and take funds from my account, if they have 51%'d into a contract, and then don't really have the balance? 14:46 < lndbot> They can do that without Lightning 14:46 < ChunkyPuffs> Lolwut? 14:46 < ChunkyPuffs> they can take money from my btc address? 14:46 < ChunkyPuffs> Sounds legit 14:46 < lndbot> Just buy things and then reverse the payment 14:46 < ChunkyPuffs> No, I mean the tangible asset 14:46 < ChunkyPuffs> BTC from your lightning wallet, eg 14:47 < ChunkyPuffs> you said the money is taken from the peer 14:47 < lndbot> They can only take from what they’ve already sent 14:47 < lndbot> Same as the no-Lightning case 14:50 < ChunkyPuffs> well what they sent was nothing 14:51 < ChunkyPuffs> I double spent the creation of the contract 14:51 < ChunkyPuffs> I have all the btc I "spent" in my wallet, meanwhile the contract exists and I have my LN balance 14:51 < lndbot> If they sent nothing they can’t take anything 14:51 < ChunkyPuffs> so I have my LN balance, without any real bitcoin in the contract 14:51 < ChunkyPuffs> because that real bitcoin is back at home 14:51 < ChunkyPuffs> can you just re-iterate what exactly I can do in this position? 14:52 < lndbot> It’s no different from what you do when a normal double spend happens 14:53 < ChunkyPuffs> right, but who loses the money, that's my problem 14:53 < ChunkyPuffs> you said the channel peer, so the store owner loses the money? 14:53 < lndbot> if you double spent the tx that opened the channel, you don't have "without any real bitcoin in the contract" that channel doesn't exist. ln waits for minimum depth to consider a channel/contract open 14:53 < ChunkyPuffs> Like, actual money, not the shirt 14:53 < lndbot> The merchant never really had the money 14:53 < ChunkyPuffs> oh okay, I thought to have a channel open he would also have to have some funds 14:53 < ChunkyPuffs> is this not true? 14:53 < lndbot> no 14:53 < lndbot> Not true 14:54 < ChunkyPuffs> right, and I'm saying that the 51% attack faked 6 blocks 14:54 < ChunkyPuffs> at which point the contract is open 14:54 < ChunkyPuffs> so what does LN say to that double spend? 14:54 < lndbot> Unless they bought something they can’t take any money out 14:54 < ChunkyPuffs> does LN give you a balance? Or is the channel state closed? 14:54 < lndbot> It’s like it never existed 14:54 < lndbot> exactly 14:54 < ChunkyPuffs> so you don't get a LN balance? 14:55 < lndbot> Nope 14:55 < lndbot> Balances are tied to UTXOs 14:55 < lndbot> if the UTXO goes away so does the balance 14:55 < ChunkyPuffs> So what happens in the meantime to the node if you spend that LN balance whilst it's considered "open" by the node 14:55 < ChunkyPuffs> it recalculates balance after it's considered to be closed and never happened? 14:55 < ChunkyPuffs> and ultimately nothing happens? 14:55 < lndbot> Right 14:55 < lndbot> Except the merchant loses his shirt 14:56 < lndbot> It’s not even closed, it was never open 14:56 < lndbot> History can go backwards and forwards in the Bitcoin blockchain 14:56 < lndbot> same thing as an onchain double spent 14:58 < lndbot> Just like in Back to the Future, what happened to Biff’s hotel when the future went back to normal? 14:59 < ChunkyPuffs> Lmao I love that. 15:00 < ChunkyPuffs> Oh man, Back to the Future can explain so much about blockchain attacks. 15:00 < ChunkyPuffs> Someone needs to get on popularising that 15:00 < ChunkyPuffs> The could really help normal people understand. 15:02 < lndbot> You also need a massive amount of energy to go back in time 15:03 < ChunkyPuffs> So what you're saying is that if we find a flux capacitor at some point, we will be able to take over Bitcoin? 15:03 < ChunkyPuffs> Ah.. But even that isn't worth doing.. 15:03 < ChunkyPuffs> Because it's more worth going back in time to buy bitcoin than to attack it. 15:03 < ChunkyPuffs> I love bitcoin incentives so much, it really proves its worth./ 15:04 < lndbot> Or inventing it 15:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Satoshi's balance is moving guys.... 15:16 < molz> PatBoy, i'm sure if you have MinGW you should have 'make.exe' in MinGW\bin directory, just have to put it in 'Path' in your 'System Variables' 15:19 < PatBoy> i will givwe a look thx molz 15:19 < molz> :) 15:25 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@118-40.echostar.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:35 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:37 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:43 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 15:45 < BashCo_> if a payment continuously fails, does lnd try a different channel? 15:47 < lndbot> It tries different routes on each send 16:03 < ChunkyPuffs> alexbosworth what happens in the case of a reorg double spend? 16:03 < ChunkyPuffs> same scenario as earlier 16:03 < lndbot> Isn’t that what you were saying earlier? 16:04 < ChunkyPuffs> well yeah but I am saying in the case of a firewalled china, for exampl 16:04 < ChunkyPuffs> you have china mining their own chain, and USA mining its own chain, for example 16:04 < ChunkyPuffs> china submits a contract, opens a channel, USA does 16:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Who's bitcoin is valid? 16:05 < ChunkyPuffs> do they both get a LN balance? 16:05 < lndbot> Depends what happens exactly 16:05 < ChunkyPuffs> but the result can never be overprovisioning of BTC on LN? 16:05 < ChunkyPuffs> there is never a case when LN balances can be withdrawn for real bitcoin fraudulently, draining the channel? 16:06 < lndbot> If the attacked node is routing it opens itself to more of a double spend attack 16:07 < lndbot> There is no LN network-wide balance, only the balance between you and your peer 16:07 < molz> ChunkyPuffs, have you set up an lnd node yet? 16:08 < lndbot> If you trick your peer into giving you a BTC balance in exchange for no deposit then you get some money for nothing 16:08 < lndbot> The money comes from the peer in that case 16:18 < murrayn> lncli unlock 16:18 < murrayn> gives me: "[lncli] rpc error: code = Unknown desc = invalid passphrase for master public key" 16:18 < murrayn> can i delete his wallet and start over 16:18 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has joined #lnd 16:19 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:23 -!- bitconner [~conner@a109-49-178-236.cpe.netcabo.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:35 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 16:37 -!- melvster [~melvin@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 16:40 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 16:53 -!- camonz [~camonz@169.red-79-144-149.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com] 16:55 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has joined #lnd 17:00 -!- nodweber [~nodweber@unaffiliated/nodweber] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:03 < ChunkyPuffs> molz, is there anything in it for me? 17:04 < ChunkyPuffs> And no, I haven't quite had a reason to do so yet, although I want to actually start playing with accepting payments, so I'll have a reason to do so this weekend 17:04 < ChunkyPuffs> What are the fees like though, out of interest? Can you make money? 17:05 < ChunkyPuffs> I had to play around with it when using Zap, and it wasn't too bad, so I'll give it a proper go. 17:05 < ChunkyPuffs> There's just so many required arguments lol 17:08 -!- MaxSan [~user@185.156.175.51] has joined #lnd 17:09 < molz> ChunkyPuffs, there's probably nothing in it for you if you don't want to deep dive in it 17:09 < molz> LN isn't for everyone 17:09 < ChunkyPuffs> Course not, and I want to set up a store with it, and will do so 17:09 < molz> and no, there's no money in fees right now 17:10 < ChunkyPuffs> But with Andreas talking about the fees, it makes me think whether there's anything in it for early adopters running channels 17:10 < ChunkyPuffs> The problem for me, setting up a store, is the blockchain size 17:11 < ChunkyPuffs> the great server I run my sites on is ssd space, so storage comes at a premium. 17:11 < ChunkyPuffs> and for lightning-charge's docker container to work, you need to run it locally, otherwise configuration is everywhere. 17:17 < BashCo_> I've got several channels open but it doesn't appear to attempt all channels. I get a few "TemporaryChannelFailure" errors and lncli just hangs. listchannels shows that one channel collects all the pending_hltcs. 17:17 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] h00dl opened pull request #1426: added instructions for writing gRPC clients in Rust (master...master) https://git.io/fCaxq 17:30 -!- simlay_ is now known as simlay 17:46 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 17:48 -!- drexl [~drexl@cpc130676-camd16-2-0-cust445.know.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: drexl] 17:53 < lndbot> "averageTimetoPaidInvoiceSecs": 88, 17:53 < lndbot> nice 17:53 < lndbot> that's from creating the invoice ;) Not when someone attempts to send 17:54 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@wl-loc177-82.liwest.at] has joined #lnd 18:37 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@104.137.194.255] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 18:46 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 18:51 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 19:00 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 19:01 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 19:25 -!- daouzo23 [~daouzo23@wl-loc177-82.liwest.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 19:49 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 19:52 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:55 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 19:57 < ChunkyPuffs> alexbosworth, someone was telling me earlier that nodes can randomly go down, causing channels to be looked, and have to wait up to 144 blocks to receive their funds back 19:57 < lndbot> Could be weeks 19:57 < ChunkyPuffs> Is it true that we're reliant on the uptime of random individuals, and that we could see random issues like that occur, just out of the blue? % chance that your funding is fucked? 19:57 < lndbot> It happens to me all the time 19:57 < ChunkyPuffs> So that is just an inherent issue? 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> and it's not going to be solved? 19:58 < lndbot> Think of it this way, every day you get a little present when your timelocked funds become unstuck 19:58 < lndbot> Well you have an incentive to not have it happen 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> So can you explain to me how this is acceptable? 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> Even slightly? 19:58 < lndbot> So it should trend towards not happening 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> We can't be doing that.. 19:58 < lndbot> That’s kind of how this whole thing works 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> We can't be expecting randos to have good uptime 19:58 < ChunkyPuffs> that's really... upsetting 19:59 < ChunkyPuffs> and for how much faith I put in lightning, jesus 19:59 < ChunkyPuffs> All of this tech for incentive hopes 19:59 < ChunkyPuffs> The only people that will have good uptime are those centralized hubs, maybe the cashies were right. 19:59 < ChunkyPuffs> Why isn't this synonymous with centralization? 20:00 < ChunkyPuffs> If we're expecting uptime, we can only expect uptime from high quality infrastructure, can't we? 20:00 < lndbot> What’s the negative outcome of people using a high quality node? 20:00 < ChunkyPuffs> That high quality node could be coinbase. And coinbase could freeze funds to be assholes and disrupt the network. 20:01 < ChunkyPuffs> And we'd have a "visa outage" at their will 20:01 < lndbot> How do they freeze funds? 20:01 < ChunkyPuffs> by being assholes and shutting it down, meaning you don't get your funds for a week 20:01 < lndbot> So, they aren’t a high quality node? 20:01 < ChunkyPuffs> there's no disincentive to not do that 20:01 < lndbot> Well you got it backwards 20:01 < ChunkyPuffs> there's an incentive to keep it running, but it's not large enough to prevent them from doing that for fun. 20:01 < ChunkyPuffs> Or for political purposes, what have you 20:02 < lndbot> You can’t trigger a timelock on someone else 20:02 < ChunkyPuffs> as stated, fees from this aren't going to be profitable 20:02 < lndbot> They have to trigger it themselves 20:03 < ChunkyPuffs> Payment hubs are bad. Are they not? 20:03 < lndbot> Bad is kind of a subjective term 20:03 < ChunkyPuffs> I was under the impression that this would be degrees of separation. 20:03 < lndbot> What is bad exactly? 20:03 < ChunkyPuffs> And that there would be no centralized hubs. 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Well the idea is that everyone is a payment processor 20:04 < lndbot> Is that the goal? 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> This is simply not true with the incentives you've outlined. 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Always seemed like it was to me 20:04 < lndbot> Well that’s up to you 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Especially with Zap wallet's little catchphrase when you sync up. 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> And the stuff Andreas talks about. 20:04 < ChunkyPuffs> Yes, entirely, that is the point. 20:04 < lndbot> Best to do your own research 20:05 < ChunkyPuffs> Not payment hubs, centralized nodes, I seriously thought that was low quality garbage from BCash cultism. 20:05 < ChunkyPuffs> But what you're telling me is that it isn't, and that there will be centralized points, and this won't be decentralized banking, and that it's not going to be stable because of random channel closage? 20:05 < lndbot> I didn’t say that 20:06 < ChunkyPuffs> Tell me a reasonable amount of money to put on LN when it's completely adopted. 20:06 < ChunkyPuffs> Is it never going to be over $100? 20:06 < ChunkyPuffs> Ever? 20:07 < lndbot> I have more than $100 myself 20:07 < ChunkyPuffs> And it's always going to be a terrible experience unless you use Coinbase's channel? 20:07 < lndbot> Didn’t you say that they give a terrible experience? 20:08 < ChunkyPuffs> I was under the impression that routing was so automated that your channels would just be auto replaced or something magic such as that. 20:08 < ChunkyPuffs> Aka no downtime possible 20:08 < lndbot> You should probably read the RFCs 20:08 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm really sad that the network relies on the uptime of random users. 20:08 < ChunkyPuffs> How is that decentralized? 20:09 < lndbot> You don’t have to connect to random users 20:09 < lndbot> If you want, you can only connect to your friends 20:09 < ChunkyPuffs> I don't want to use a central point, and neither should anybody else. 20:09 < ChunkyPuffs> That's the whole argument, that we don't want any central authority, hubs, banks, etc. 20:09 < lndbot> That’s your whole argument 20:09 < ChunkyPuffs> We want decentralized banking, which you're saying this doesn't provide, right? 20:09 < ChunkyPuffs> You're telling me this doesn't provide decentralized banking? 20:09 < lndbot> I didn’t say that 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> "You don't have to connect to random users" 20:10 < lndbot> Not if you don’t want to 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> That is equivalent to saying you don't need privacy. 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> You don't need privacy by default, that's fallacious isn't it? 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> Because unless you have privacy by default, you don't have privacy. 20:10 < lndbot> Bitcoin isn’t all that private 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> No, but it's an analog. 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> Try this. 20:10 < ChunkyPuffs> And unless you have decentralization by default, you don't have decentralization. 20:10 < lndbot> I would say it’s pretty far from private 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> I never said it was private. 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> I'm making an analogy by monero vs zcash 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> zcash isn't private because it's not private by default. 20:11 < lndbot> It would be nice if it were private 20:11 < lndbot> Monero has its privacy issues as well 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> Bitcoin Lightning can't be decentralized unless it's decentralized by default. 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> Can it? 20:11 < ChunkyPuffs> Bitcoin on lightning isn't decentralized if it's not automatically randomly connecting you to random nodes. 20:11 < lndbot> I can’t really help you, since I don’t really know what you are talking about sorry 20:12 < ChunkyPuffs> How is lightning decentralized if you can't connect to random nodes without fear of their uptime being trash? 20:12 < ChunkyPuffs> So then you're forced to use a centralized reliable service 20:12 < ChunkyPuffs> yknow, an actual bank, as bad as a bank, with all the powers of a bank. 20:12 < molz> when you open your browser do you just connect to random sites? 20:12 < ChunkyPuffs> Isn't that separate? 20:13 < ChunkyPuffs> The sites all don't have one purpose, lightning has one purpose 20:13 < ChunkyPuffs> not the same thing 20:13 < ChunkyPuffs> If I want to pay for something on lightning, I don't want to use coinbase. 20:13 < ChunkyPuffs> I want to use a random node, I was under the impression that P2P would work fine on lightning. 20:13 < ChunkyPuffs> And you're telling me that you get funds locked every now and then, why is that acceptable? 20:14 < ChunkyPuffs> This fundamentally works different than advertised. 20:14 < ChunkyPuffs> Which has made me a bit upset, since I thought it was going to solve so many problems. 20:15 < ChunkyPuffs> I know that it's still a better situation than what we're in now. We all use centralized exchanges. 20:15 < ChunkyPuffs> It's still going to be great. But I thought that you really wouldn't have the payment hub scenario that is envisioned by the cash crowd. 20:16 < lndbot> ChunkyPuffs: you seem to be objecting for the sake of objecting. If you don't want to connect to Coinbase, don't. If you don't want centralization, run a fucking node. 20:16 < ChunkyPuffs> You're missing the point of "by default" 20:16 < ChunkyPuffs> Zcash isn't private, at all, because it's not private by default. 20:16 < ChunkyPuffs> This will never be decentralized unless it's decentralized by default. 20:17 < ChunkyPuffs> Doesn't matter what I do, it's what the majority of people do. 20:18 < lndbot> Everyone can choose whether or run a node, or whom to connect to. Run a node or quit your bitching. 20:18 < ChunkyPuffs> You can choose whether you want private transactions or not on ZCash. 20:18 < ChunkyPuffs> As such, almost no transactions are private. 20:18 < ChunkyPuffs> On Lightning you can choose whether or not you want decentralized transactions, as a result, most are not decentralized. 20:19 < ChunkyPuffs> On Monero, it's private by default. As a result, all transactions are private (Except for a few in 2013 because stuff) 20:19 < ChunkyPuffs> Solved in an interesting fork called Masari, btw, since that has homogenous ringct from day 1 20:20 < ChunkyPuffs> I can choose not to use coinbase. But if 90% of people do, that fucks everything we've worked for up. 20:20 < ChunkyPuffs> So why even allow that social centralization to occur? 20:20 < ChunkyPuffs> We already know that cryptocurrencies get attacked socially, so why delude yourself into thinking choice is such a good thing. 20:21 < ChunkyPuffs> Like I said, it's still better, infinitely, than what we currently have in this world. But it's still more centralized than I thought it was going to be :( 20:22 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 20:23 < lndbot> Bitcoin and LN are voluntary. You can't force everyone to run a node, but you can run one yourself, or stfu. 20:23 < molz> ChunkyPuffs, just a friendly reminder that this channel is for development, where people come to report issues or ask for help, and where the devs read the issues to respond, so please take this convo somewhere else 20:23 < molz> i look at this screen and see pages of your rambling, this is enough 20:23 < ChunkyPuffs> Not so friendly in the second comment. 20:24 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:23 -!- j9m [~j9m@47.157.125.55] has joined #lnd 21:30 < lndbot> Have like 7k on Bitrefill alone... works fine 21:58 -!- dougsland [~douglas@c-73-234-93-65.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:59 -!- CubicEarths [~cubiceart@c-73-181-185-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #lnd 22:04 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-72-54-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd 22:34 -!- lavie [8de20ba2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.141.226.11.162] has joined #lnd 22:42 -!- lavie [8de20ba2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.141.226.11.162] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 22:45 -!- grafcaps [~haroldbr@50.90.83.229] has joined #lnd 23:04 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@118-40.echostar.pl] has joined #lnd 23:14 -!- pioklo [~Pioklo@118-40.echostar.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 23:18 -!- murrayn [~dafuq@unaffiliated/murrayn] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 23:19 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p5DDB5639.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #lnd 23:19 -!- tiagotrs [~user@p5DDB5639.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Changing host] 23:19 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has joined #lnd 23:35 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-72-54-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 23:52 -!- tiagotrs [~user@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 23:53 -github-lnd:#lnd- [lnd] maurycy opened pull request #1427: notifications: do not reacquire the lock (master...notifications_num_clients) https://git.io/fCxI0 23:59 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-72-54-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #lnd