Latency/peer disconnection may trigger us to mark as disabled
some of our channels. After some time, if channels are still
disabled we need to broadcast ChannelUpdate to inform other network
peers about the uselessness of these channels.
Because filter_block takes a and returns a list of s , we must add a lifetime to the ChainWatchInterface, which bubbles up in a lot of places. These places include adding a lifetime to the Node struct, which causes a lot of rearranging tests so that variables don't go out of scope before the Node that owns them does.
Adding this struct will allow us to remove the circular reference
between ChainListeners and the ChainWatchInterface, because it
separates out the responsibility of notifying listeners about new
blocks from the responsibility of storing and retrieving watched
transactions.
This includes the purpose of this PR, which is to remove the circular reference created by ChainListeners self-adding themselves to their ChainWatchInterface's `listeners` field.
Require to specify expected amount so that we can claim only
payment for thhe correct amount, and reject payments for incorrect
amounts (which are probably middle nodes probing to break our privacy).
Send back incorrect_or_unknown_payments_details (PERM|15) to avoid
the probe node learning that final node is waiting a payment with
the routed hash.
We also fulfilled last empty ErrorAction:
- Router secp fail : IgnoreError
- processing error in Router : IgnoreError
- get_channel_update too early : IgnoreError
In case of duplicate HTLCs with same hash going in opposite
directions we may learn preimage of offered one, but we shouldn't
claim received one to avoid invalidation of combined claim.
The received HTLC is going to be claimed by a timeout tx at
timelock expiration.
Fix#337
You may use it to get a broadcastable local toxic tx in case of fallen-behind,
i.e when receiving a channel_reestablish with a proof that our remote side
knows a higher revocation secret than the local commitment number we are aware
of. Broadcasting these transactions are UNSAFE, as they allow remote side to punish
you. Nevertheless you may want to broadcast them if remote don't close channel with his
higher commitment transaction after a substantial amount of time (a month or even a year)
to get back funds. Best may be to contact out-of-band the other node operator to coordinate
with him if option is available to you. In any-case, choice is up to the user.
Also, log toxic commitment tx id in channel_reestablish sending back
ChannelError::CloseDelayBroadcast
If we remote peer provide us a revocation secret which doesn't
match with next_remote_revocation_number we close the channel
If we learn that we are fallen-behind, we send back a CloseDelayBroadcast
error, special take care will be take to log error and channel should
stale, i.e we expect our honest peer to unilateral close to claim
on it our balance
Add ChannelError::CloseDelayBroadcast to signal that you need to close
the channel but not to broadcast it while however update ChannelMonitor
with remote per_commitment_point thanks to our peer being a gentleman
