I tried to just do gossipd, but it was uncontainable, so this ended up being
a complete sweep.
We didn't get much space saving in gossipd, even though we should save
24 bytes per node.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This field was used by `pay` to hold the bolt11 description if the bolt11
string used `h` to hash the description (which nobody ever did). If the
`h` field wasn't present, it could contain anything, as it wasn't checked.
It's really useful to have a label for payments (eg. '1 Cuban'), but adding
yet-another option would be painful, so we simply rename 'description'
to 'label' except inside the db.
This means we need to do some tricky parameter parsing to handle array
and keyword JSON arguments, but only until we remove the old name.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Without this, there's no proof of payment, since it is the signed invoice
that make the receipt valid.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This allows us to specify that an output must have been confirmed before the
given maximum height. This allows us to specify a minimum number of
confirmations for an output to be selected.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
As a side-effect of using amount_msat in gossipd/routing.c, we explicitly
handle overflows and don't need to pre-prune ridiculous-fee channels.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
And use wallet_forward_status_in_db() everywhere in db code.
And clean up extra CHANGELOG.md entry (looks like rebase error?)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The left join should make sure we still get the results but
referencing the fields and/or attempting to write them to the JSON-RPC
result will cause unforeseen problems. So just omit if we forgot
something.
We split json_invoice(), as it now needs to round-trip to the gossipd,
and uniqueness checks need to happen *after* gossipd replies to avoid
a race.
For every candidate channel gossipd gives us, we check that it's in
state NORMAL (not shutting down, not still waiting for lockin), that
it's connected, and that it has capacity. We then choose one with
probability weighted by excess capacity, so larger channels are more
likely.
As a side effect of this, we can tell if an invoice is unpayble (no
channels have sufficient incoming capacity) or difficuly (no *online*
channels have sufficient capacity), so we add those warnings.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Note that we don't actually need the output number: it's the tx itself
which is confirmed. And the next caller doesn't have it convenient, so
eliminate it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
These are not confirmed by the normal methods (wallet_can_spend is false!),
so we'll deal with them manually.
We use UTXO_FIELDS in wallet_add_utxo, too, for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This seems like a premature optimization: it tried to cut down the number of
allocations by reusing the same `struct invoice_details` while iterating through
a number of results. But this sidesteps the checks by `valgrind` and we'd miss a
missing field that was set by the previous iteration.
Reported-by: @rustyrussell
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <@cdecker>
Well, it's generated by shachain, so technically it is a sha256, but
that's an internal detail. It's a secret.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Simplification of the offset calculation to use the rescan parameter, and rename
of `wallet_first_blocknum`. We now use either relative rescan from our last
known location, or absolute if a negative rescan was given. It's all handled in
a single location (except the case in which the blockcount is below our
precomputed offset), so this should reduce surprises.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This will be used to replay transactions that were witnessed in the blockchain
during startup, so that onchaind can be recreate its state.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
The only use for these was to compute their txids so we could notify depth
in case of reorgs.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This fixes the root cause of https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/issues/1212
where we deleted the payment because we wanted to retry, then retry failed
so we had an (old) HTLC without a matching payment. We then fed that
HTLC to onchaind, which tells us it's missing, and we try to fail the
payment and deref a NULL pointer.
Fixes: #1212
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
