Even if our gossip hasn't changed, we should be willing to
re-broadcast it to our peers. All our peers may have been
disconnected the last time we broadcasted it.
We update the `Channel::update_time_counter` field (which is copied
into `ChannelUpdate::timestamp`) only when the channel is
initialized or closes, and when a new block is connected. However,
if a peer disconnects or reconnects, we may wish to generate
`ChannelUpdate` updates in between new blocks. In such a case, we
need to make sure the `timestamp` field is newer than any previous
updates' `timestamp` fields, which we do here by simply
incrementing it when the channel status is changed.
As a side effect of this we have to update
`test_background_processor` to ensure it eventually succeeds even
if the serialization of the `ChannelManager` changes after the test
begins.
When a `ChannelUpdate` message is generated for broadcast as a part
of a `BroadcastChannelAnnouncement` event, it may be newer than our
previous `ChannelUpdate` and need to be broadcast. However, if the
`ChannelAnnouncement` had already been seen we wouldn't
re-broadcast either message as the `handle_channel_announcement`
call would fail, short-circuiting the condition to broadcast both.
Instead, we split the broadcast of each message as well as the
conditional so that we always attempt to handle each message and
update our local graph state, then broadcast the message if its
update was processed successfully.
A single PaymentSent event is generated when a payment is fulfilled.
This is occurs when the preimage is revealed on the first claimed HTLC.
For subsequent HTLCs, the event is not generated.
In order to score channels involved with a successful payments, the
scorer must be notified of each successful path involved in the payment.
Add a PaymentPathSuccessful event for this purpose. Generate it whenever
a part is removed from a pending outbound payment. This avoids duplicate
events when reconnecting to a peer.
Previously, we would reject inbound channels if the funder wasn't
able to meet our channel reserve on their first commitment
transaction only if they also failed to push enough to us for us
to not meet their initial channel reserve as well.
There's not a lot of reason to care about us meeting their reserve,
however - its largely expected that they may not push enough to us
in the initial open to meet it, and its not actually our problem if
they don't.
Further, we used our own fee, instead of the channel's actual fee,
to calculate fee affordability of the initial commitment
transaction.
We resolve both issues here, rewriting the combined affordability
check conditionals in inbound channel open handling and adding a
fee affordability check for outbound channels as well.
The prior code may have allowed a counterparty to start the channel
with "no punishment" states - violating the reason for the reserve
threshold.
Instead of magic hard-coded constants, its better for tests to
derive the values used so that they change if constants are changed
and so that it is easier to re-derive constants in the future as
needed.
This may avoid risk of bugs in the future as it requires the caller
to think about the fee being used, not just blindly use the current
(committed) channel feerate.
In upcoming commits, we'll be making the payment secret and payment hash/preimage
derivable from info about the payment + a node secret. This means we don't
need to store any info about incoming payments and can eventually get rid of the
channelmanager::pending_inbound_payments map.
Traits in top-level modules is somewhat confusing - generally
top-level modules are just organizational modules and don't contain
things themselves, instead placing traits and structs in
sub-modules. Further, its incredibly awkward to have a `scorer`
sub-module, but only have a single struct in it, with the relevant
trait it is the only implementation of somewhere else. Not having
`Score` in the `scorer` sub-module is further confusing because
it's the only module anywhere that references scoring at all.
Sending HTLCs which are any greater than a very small fraction of the
channel size tend to fail at a much higher rate. Thus, by default
we start applying a penalty at only 1/8th the channel size and
increase it linearly as the amount reaches the channel's capacity,
20 msat per 1024th of the channel capacity.
This should allow `Score` implementations to make substantially
better decisions, including of the form "willing to pay X to avoid
routing over this channel which may have a high failure rate".
Currently, we write out the Channel's `ChannelTypeFeatures` as an
odd type, implying clients which don't understand the
`ChannelTypeFeatures` field can simply ignore it. This is obviously
nonsense if the channel type is some future version - the client
needs to fail to deserialize as it doesn't understand the channel's
type.
We adapt the serialization logic here to only write out the
`ChannelTypeFeatures` field if it is something other than
only-static-remote-key, and simply consider that "default" (as it
is the only supported type today). Then, we write out the channel
type as an even TLV, implying clients which do not understand it
must fail to read the `Channel`.
Note that we do not need to bother reserving the TLV type no longer
written as it never appeared in a release (merged post-0.0.103).
We currently assume our counterparty is naive and misconfigured and
may force-close a channel to get an HTLC we just forwarded them.
There shouldn't be any reason to do this - we don't have any such
bug, and we shouldn't start by assuming our counterparties are
buggy. Worse, this results in refusing to forward payments today,
failing HTLCs for largely no reason.
Instead, we keep a fairly conservative check, but not one which
will fail HTLC forwarding spuriously - testing only that the HTLC
doesn't expire for a few blocks from now.
Fixes#1114.
