PaymentFailed events contain an optional NetworkUpdate describing
changes to the NetworkGraph as conveyed by a node along a failed payment
path according to BOLT 4. An EventHandler should apply the update to the
graph so that future routing decisions can account for it.
Implement EventHandler for NetGraphMsgHandler to update NetworkGraph.
Previously, NetGraphMsgHandler::handle_htlc_fail_channel_update
implemented this behavior.
MessageSendEvent::PaymentFailureNetworkUpdate served as a hack to pass
an HTLCFailChannelUpdate from ChannelManager to NetGraphMsgHandler via
PeerManager. Instead, remove the event entirely and move the contained
data (renamed NetworkUpdate) to Event::PaymentFailed to be processed by
an event handler.
Now that NetworkGraph uses interior mutability, the RwLock used around
it in NetGraphMsgHandler is no longer needed. This allows for shared
ownership without a lock.
This adds the new range-based closing_signed negotiation specified
in https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/847 as
well as cleans up the existing closing_signed negotiation to unify
the new codepaths and the old ones.
Note that because the new range-based closing_signed negotiation
allows the channel fundee to ultimately select the fee out of a
range specified by the funder, which we, of course, always select
the highest allowed amount from. Thus, we've added an extra round
of closing_signed in the common case as we will not simply accept
the first fee we see, always preferring to make the funder pay as
much as they're willing to.
At `update_add_htlc()`/`send_htlc()`, we verify that the inbound/
outbound dust or the sum of both, on either sides of the link isn't
above new config setting `max_balance_dust_htlc_msat`.
A dust HTLC is hence defined as a trimmed-to-dust one, i.e including
the fee cost to publish its claiming transaction.
It is useful for accounting and informational reasons for users to
be informed when a payment has been successfully forwarded. Thus,
when an HTLC which represents a forwarded leg is claimed, we
generate a new `PaymentForwarded` event.
This requires some additional plumbing to return HTLC values from
`OnchainEvent`s. Further, when we have to go on-chain to claim the
inbound side of the payment, we do not inform the user of the fee
reward, as we cannot calculate it until we see what is confirmed
on-chain.
Substantial code structure rewrites by:
Valentine Wallace <vwallace@protonmail.com>
Private nodes should never wish to forward HTLCs at all, which we
support here by disabling forwards out over private channels by
default. As private nodes should not have any public channels, this
suffices, without allowing users to disable forwarding over
channels announced in the routing graph already.
Closes#969
Currently the base fee we apply is always the expected cost to
claim an HTLC on-chain in case of closure. This results in
significantly higher than market rate fees [1], and doesn't really
match the actual forwarding trust model anyway - as long as
channel counterparties are honest, our HTLCs shouldn't end up
on-chain no matter what the HTLC sender/recipient do.
While some users may wish to use a feerate that implies they will
not lose funds even if they go to chain (assuming no flood-and-loot
style attacks), they should do so by calculating fees themselves;
since they're already charging well above market-rate,
over-estimating some won't have a large impact.
Worse, we current re-calculate fees at forward-time, not based on
the fee we set in the channel_update. This means that the fees
others expect to pay us (and which they calculate their route based
on), is not what we actually want to charge, and that any attempt
to forward through us is inherently race-y.
This commit adds a configuration knob to set the base fee
explicitly, defaulting to 1 sat, which appears to be market-rate
today.
[1] Note that due to an msat-vs-sat bug we currently actually
charge 1000x *less* than the calculated cost.
If we are a public node and have a private channel, our
counterparty needs to know the fees which we will charge to forward
payments to them. Without sending them a channel_update, they have
no way to learn that information, resulting in the channel being
effectively useless for outbound-from-us payments.
This commit fixes our lack of channel_update messages to private
channel counterparties, ensuring we always send them a
channel_update after the channel funding is confirmed.
We had a user who pointed out that we weren't creating
`SpendableOutputs` events when we should have been after they
called `ChannelMonitor::best_block_updated` with a block well
after a CSV locktime and then called
`ChannelMonitor::transactions_confirmed` with the transaction which
we should have been spending (with a block height/hash a ways in
the past).
This was due to `ChannelMonitor::transactions_confirmed` only
calling `ChannelMonitor::block_confirmed` with the height at which
the transactions were confirmed, resulting in all checks being done
against that, not the current height.
Further, in the same scenario, we also would not fail-back and HTLC
where the HTLC-Timeout transaction was confirmed more than
ANTI_REORG_DELAY blocks ago.
To address this, we use the best block height for confirmation
threshold checks in `ChannelMonitor::block_confirmed` and pass both
the confirmation and current heights through to
`OnchainTx::update_claims_view`, using each as appropriate.
Fixes#962.
This increases the CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER constant to 18, much better
capturing how long it takes to go on chain to claim payments.
This is also more in line with other clients, and the spec, which
sets the default CLTV delay in invoices to 18.
As a side effect, we have to increase MIN_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA as
otherwise as are subject to an attack where someone can hold an
HTLC being forwarded long enough that we *also* close the channel
on which we received the HTLC.
For users who get PaymentPreimages via
`get_payment_secret_preimage`, they need to provide the
PaymentPreimage back in `claim_funds` but they aren't actually
given the preimage anywhere.
This commit gives users the PaymentPreimage in the
`PaymentReceived` event.
Like the payment_secret parameter, this paramter has been the source
of much confusion, so we just drop it.
Users should prefer to do this check when registering the payment
secret instead of at claim-time.
This allows users to store metadata about an invoice at
invoice-generation time and then index into that storage with a
general-purpose id when they call `get_payment_secret`. They will
then be provided the same index when the payment has been received.
This prepares us for requiring payment_secrets for all received
payments, by demonstrating test changes work even prior to the new
requirement.
In order to avoid needing to pipe payment secrets through to
additional places in the claim logic and then removing that
infrastructure once payment secrets are required, we use the new
payment secret storage in ChannelManager to look up the payment
secret for any given pament hash in claim and fail-back functions.
This part of the diff is reverted in the next commit.
In order to reduce code movement in the next commit, this commit
simply tweaks get_payment_preimage_hash!() and related functions in
functional tests to return a payment secret. Further, we ensure
that we always call get_payment_preimage_hash!() with the node
which will ultimately receive the payment.
