In 3f32f60ae7 we exposed the
historical success probability buckets directly, with a long method
doc explaining how to use it. While this is great for logging
exactly what the internal model thinks, its also helpful to let
users know what the internal model thinks the success probability
is directly, allowing them to compare route success probabilities.
Here we do so but only for the historical tracking buckets.
When we attempt to score a channel which has a success probability
very low, we may have a log well above our cut-off of two. For the
liquidity penalties this works great, we bound it by
`NEGATIVE_LOG10_UPPER_BOUND` and `min` the two scores. For the
amount liquidity penalty we didn't do any `min`ing at all.
This fix is to min the log itself first and then reuse the min'd
log in both calculations.
Currently we let an `htlc_amount >= channel_capacity` pass through
from `penalty_msat` to
`calculate_success_probability_times_billion`, but only if its only
marginally bigger (less than 65/64ths). This is fine as
`calculate_success_probability_times_billion` handles bogus values
just fine (it will always return a zero probability in such cases).
However, this is risky, and in fact breaks in the coming commits,
so instead check it before ever calling through to the historical
bucket probability calculations.
Here we implement `WatchtowerPersister`, which provides a test-only
sample implementation of `Persist` similar to how we might imagine a
user to build watchtower-like functionality in the persistence pipeline.
We test that the `WatchtowerPersister` is able to successfully build and
sign a valid justice transaction that sweeps a counterparty's funds if
they broadcast an old commitment.
For watchtowers to be able to build justice transactions for our
counterparty's revoked commitments, they need to be able to find the
revokeable output for them to sweep. Here we cache `to_self_delay` in
`CommitmentTransaction` to allow for finding this output on the struct
directly. We also add a simple helper method to aid in building the
initial spending transaction.
This also adds a unit test for both of these helpers, and
refactors a bit of a previous `CommitmentTransaction` unit test to make
adding these easier.
Upon creating a channel monitor, it is provided with the initial
counterparty commitment transaction info directly before the very first
time it is persisted. Because of this, the very first counterparty
commitment is not seen as an update in the persistence pipeline, and so
our previous changes to the monitor and updates cannot be used to
reconstruct this commitment.
To be able to expose the counterparty's transaction for the very first
commitment, we add a thin wrapper around
`provide_latest_counterparty_commitment_tx`, that stores the necessary
data needed to reconstruct the initial commitment transaction in the
monitor.
Currently, when we receive an HTLC claim from a peer, we first hash
the preimage they gave us before removing the HTLC, then
immediately pass the preimage to the inbound channel and hash the
preimage again before removing the HTLC and sending our peer an
`update_fulfill_htlc`. This second hash is actually only asserted
on, never used in any meaningful way as we have the htlc data
present in the same code.
Here we simply drop this second hash and move it into a
`debug_assert`.
If a user has issues with a payment, the most obvious thing they'll
do is check logs for the payment hash. Thus, we should ensure our
logs that show a payment's lifecycle include the payment hash and
are emitted (a) as soon as LDK learns of the payment, (b) once the
payment goes out to the peer (which is already reasonably covered
in the commitment transaction building logs) and (c) when the
payment ultimately is fulfilled or fails.
Here we improve our logs for both (a) and (c).
This adds the feerate and local and remote output values to this channel
monitor update step so that a monitor can reconstruct the counterparty's
commitment transaction from an update. These commitment transactions
will be exposed to users in the following commits to support third-party
watchtowers in the persistence pipeline.
With only the HTLC outputs currently available in the monitor update, we
can tell how much of the channel balance is in-flight and towards which
side, however it doesn't tell us the amount that resides on either side.
Because of dust, we can't reliably derive the remote value from the
local value and visa versa. Thus, it seems these are the minimum fields
that need to be added.
Rather than using a holder_signer of a specific
signer type in Channel and ChannelContext, this
allows us to hold an enum such that depending on
the type of channel, the appropriate signer could
be held in its respective variant.
Doing so required the reparametrization of Channel
from using a Signer to using the SignerProvider
trait. This percolated down to the ChannelManager
and multiple tests.
Now, when accessign various signer methods, there
is a distinction between accessing methods defined
for all signers on ChannelSigner, and accessing
type-specific methods using accessors such as
`as_ecdsa`.
Benchmarks were failing because node config and
channel monitor configs were tied to the same
lifetime.
Introducing a separate lifetime allows to avoid
out-of-order deallocation errors.
This will make it possible to
link between SpendableOuts and ChannelMonitor
- change channel_id to option so we dont break upgrade
- remove unused channel_id
- document channel_id
- extract channel id dynamically to pass test
- use contains to check channel_id in test as the events are not ordered
- update docs framing
- specify ldk version channel_id will be introduced in
Co-authored-by: Elias Rohrer <dev@tnull.de>
Update lightning/src/events/mod.rs
Co-authored-by: Elias Rohrer <dev@tnull.de>
BOLT 12 messages need to be signed in the following scenarios:
- constructing an InvoiceRequest after scanning an Offer,
- constructing an Invoice after scanning a Refund, and
- constructing an Invoice when handling an InvoiceRequest.
Extend the NodeSigner trait to support signing BOLT 12 invoices such
that it can be used in the latter contexts. The method could be used
in an OffersMessageHandler.
Bolt12Invoice can either be for an Offer (via an InvoiceRequest) or a
Refund. It wraps those types, so expose their methods on both
Bolt12Invoice and UnsignedBolt12Invoice.
Since Refund does not have all the Offer/InvoiceRequest methods, use an
Option return type such that None can returned for refund-based
invoices.
For methods that are duplicated between Offer/InvoiceRequest and
Bolt12Invoice, prefer the (non-Option, if applicable) method from
Bolt12Invoice (e.g., amount_msats, signing_pubkey).
Various messages wrap InvoiceRequestContents, which shouldn't be exposed
as it is an implementation detail. Define a macro for InvoiceRequest
accessor methods so that these messages can also define them.
