--- Log opened Tue Oct 06 00:00:38 2020
00:49 -!- real_or_random [~real_or_r@2a02:c207:3002:7468::1] has joined #rust-bitcoin
00:50 -!- real_or_- [~real_or_r@173.249.7.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:43 -!- ulrichard [~richi@212.71.103.20] has joined #rust-bitcoin
01:45 -!- ulrichard [~richi@212.71.103.20] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:45 -!- ulrichard [~richi@212.71.103.20] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:07 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:22 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:26 -!- CjS77 [~caylemeis@195.159.29.126] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:26 -!- neonknight64 [~neonknigh@195.159.29.126] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:27 -!- simian_za0 [~simian_za@195.159.29.126] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:27 -!- Blackwolfsa4 [~Blackwolf@195.159.29.126] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:27 -!- stanimal [~stanimal@195.159.29.126] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:39 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.72.239] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:01 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:02 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:17 -!- Mylene60Pollich [~Mylene60P@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:20 -!- Mikel58Skiles [~Mikel58Sk@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:33 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: moneyball__, jamesob
03:34 -!- Netsplit over, joins: moneyball__, jamesob
05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #rust-bitcoin
05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #rust-bitcoin
05:12 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.72.239] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:18 -!- tibo_ [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:803e:5937:d7cc:3b68] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:13 -!- nothingmuch [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in]
06:49 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #rust-bitcoin
06:57 -!- Mikel58Skiles [~Mikel58Sk@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:03 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
07:17 -!- nothingmuch [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:07 -!- ulrichard [~richi@212.71.103.20] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:24 -!- varioust [~varioust@rrcs-76-79-47-154.west.biz.rr.com] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:43 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:44 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:04 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:52 < elichai2> BlueMatt: it looks like emscripten is still broken
09:52  * elichai2 facepalm
09:52 < BlueMatt> that wouldnt surprise me, but i think basically we're not trying to support emscripten?
09:53 < BlueMatt> given its, like, not supported by anything else, afaiu
10:36 < ariard> BlueMatt: re-653, here the issue due to bip69, commitment tx outputs are ordered first by amount in ascending order
10:36 < ariard> this means that if a HTLC is inferior to a commitmnent balanace it will always come first
10:36 < BlueMatt> right?
10:37 < BlueMatt> ok?
10:37 < ariard> this is okay for the remote commitment balance case as we were monitoring all the outputs
10:37 < ariard> this is an issue for the local commitment side
10:37 < ariard> as we only track HTLCs outputs
10:37 < ariard> hmmm not that's an issue for remote commitment balance too
10:37 < BlueMatt> would my earlier suggested test inside ChannelMonitor catch it?
10:37 < ariard> wait I understand why it wasn't discovered by our test framework
10:38 < ariard> and why I found it while working on anchor
10:38 < ariard> our htlc_max_value_in_flight is hard configured to be 10% of channel value
10:38 < ariard> so it means HTLC will never be superior to the balance and thus never come second
10:38 < ariard> and the index tracking brokeness is never exposed
10:39 < ariard> until introducing anchor which a fixed output amount of 330, as they come first, HTLC outputs spends won't be detected
10:39 < ariard> without the fix
10:39 < BlueMatt> ah, so its cause we never have >10 htlcs in flight in a commitment tx in tests?
10:39 < BlueMatt> seems like an easy test to add
10:39 < ariard> no you need a HTLC output to be superior to a balance one
10:40 < ariard> and this balance one not being tracked like on the local side
10:40 < BlueMatt> right, so just add 20 htlcs?
10:40 < BlueMatt> or, 11, i guess
10:40 < ariard> I think we're tracking holder `to_remote` on counterparty commitment but I think it's uselesss
10:40 < ariard> and this may explain the case where HTLC output are superior to counterparty balance but not brokeness not being triggered
10:41 < ariard> you need to modify htlc_max_value_in_flight to be like >= 50%
10:41 < ariard> that's easy just have to add htlc_max_value_in_flight as config option and relax it
10:41 < BlueMatt> no? create 11 htlcs in flight, use the last one to set local balances to super-low, and you'll hit it
10:41 < BlueMatt> i mean yes we can make it configurable too, but no need for this
10:42 < ariard> so 11 htlcs in-flight inferior to max_htlc_value, settle one of them thus as remote as a small balance, broadcast local commitment
10:43 < BlueMatt> 9 htlcs at max_htlc_value, 1 more to cut to_remote/local values down to very low, broadcast transaction.
10:43 < ariard> the one more will be rejected due to > max_htlc_value
10:44 < ariard> what you want is a local commitment transaction with a balance output inferior to HTLC
10:44 < ariard> it doesn't matter if it's holder/counterparty
10:44 < ariard> so just have to route-and-settle like 100000msat then route another one superior and the bug should be triggered
10:49 < BlueMatt> yea, alright. I mean whatever hits it :)
10:50 < BlueMatt> also good to have an assertion for it cause the fuzz tests should find this one if there's an assertion in ChannelMonitor
11:30 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:42 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has joined #rust-bitcoin
12:59 -!- yancy [~root@li1543-67.members.linode.com] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.3]
13:31 < stevenroose> hmm, would we be willing to have a liberapay account or so to pay for a travis subscription?
13:31 < stevenroose> we only have 2 travis jobs in parallel, which is quite annoying :)
13:32 < stevenroose> sgeisler: PR to reduce the number of Travis jobs we have for bitcoincore-rpc: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoincore-rpc/pull/145
13:37 < sgeisler> stevenroose: while this PR makes sense, what do you think about migrating to github actions given the severe limitations of travis (this would also remove travis as an external dep that can break, if GH is down nothing works anyway)
13:37 < sgeisler> I think GH actions give us 20 parallel jobs
13:47 < sgeisler> The travis pricing seems kinda extreme too, maybe I'm reading it wrong but the upper limit seems to be 10 concurrent jobs at ~500$/month?!
13:50 < stevenroose> well perhaps I'd like to change my question to "would we be willing to put some money together to host git.bitcoin.rs and our own CI?" :D
13:59 -!- varioust [~varioust@rrcs-76-79-47-154.west.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:10 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:2169:c728:3ef4:a0c6] has joined #rust-bitcoin
16:29 -!- tibo [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:8443:2c82:af77:7c71] has joined #rust-bitcoin
16:50 < ariard> BlueMatt: yeah updated, for a fuzzing assertion you need a reference point to compare against, it's a bit more complex than the current full_stack_target
16:51 < ariard> note that I'm thinking about real fuzzing coverage of the monitoring backend, where we would send challenge and see if it yells the good chain of transactions
16:52 < ariard> with the right types, witness and feerate, timing intervals, all of this, but that's far more work and in my post-anchor backlog
17:00 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:05 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
17:37 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:47 -!- varioust [~varioust@cpe-108-167-11-88.neb.res.rr.com] has joined #rust-bitcoin
17:51 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:2169:c728:3ef4:a0c6] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
18:13 -!- varioust [~varioust@cpe-108-167-11-88.neb.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:22 -!- varioust [~varioust@cpe-108-167-11-88.neb.res.rr.com] has joined #rust-bitcoin
19:28 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
19:52 -!- varioust [~varioust@cpe-108-167-11-88.neb.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
23:14 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
23:14 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:14 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
23:18 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin
--- Log closed Wed Oct 07 00:00:39 2020