--- 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