We don't actually yet support `warning` messages as there are
issues left to resolve in the spec PR, but there's nothing to stop
us adding an internal enum variant for sending a warning message
before we actually support doing so.
Previously we'd been expecting to implement anchor outputs before
shipping 0.1, thus reworking our channel fee update process
entirely and leaving it as a future task. However, due to the
difficulty of working with on-chain anchor pools, we are now likely
to ship 0.1 without requiring anchor outputs.
In either case, there isn't a lot of reason to require that users
call an explicit "prevailing feerates have changed" function now
that we have a timer method which is called regularly. Further, we
really should be the ones deciding on the channel feerate in terms
of the users' FeeEstimator, instead of requiring users implement a
second fee-providing interface by calling an update_fee method.
Finally, there is no reason for an update_fee method to be
channel-specific, as we should be updating all (outbound) channel
fees at once.
Thus, we move the update_fee handling to the background, calling it
on the regular 1-minute timer. We also update the regular 1-minute
timer to fire on startup as well as every minute to ensure we get
fee updates even on mobile clients that are rarely, if ever, open
for more than one minute.
When handling shutdown messages, Channel cannot move to
ChannelState::ShutdownComplete. Remove the code in ChannelManager that
adds a MessageSendEvent::BroadcastChannelUpdate in this case since it is
unreachable.
When a shutdown script is omitted from open_channel or accept_channel,
it must be provided when sending shutdown. Generate the shutdown script
at channel closing time in this case rather at channel opening.
This requires producing a ChannelMonitorUpdate with the shutdown script
since it is no longer known at ChannelMonitor creation.
This is one of the riskiest parts of our API from the perspective
of accidental force-closes - if users delay persisting the
ChannelManager much at all after a ChannelMonitor we may hit a
force-close after restart.
The fact that we don't log at all when this happens is criminal.
While we should never reach `ClaimFundsFromHop::DuplicateClaim` in
most cases, if we do, it likely indicates the HTLC was timed out
some time ago and is no longer available to be claimed. Thus, it
does not make sense to imply that we `claimed_any_htlcs`.
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>
Previously, we could fail to generate a new commitment transaction
but it simply indicated we had gone to doule-claim an HTLC. Now
that double-claims are returned instead as Ok(None), we should
handle the error case and fail the channel, as the only way to hit
the error case is if key derivation failed or the user refused to
sign the new commitment transaction.
This also resolves an issue where we wouldn't inform our
ChannelMonitor of the new payment preimage in case we failed to
fetch a signature for the new commitment transaction.
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.
After the merge of #984, Jeff pointed out that `ChannelDetails` has
become a bit of a "bag of variables", and that a few of the variable
names in #984 were more confusing than necessary in context.
This addresses several issues by:
* Splitting counterparty parameters into a separate
`ChannelCounterpartyParameters` struct,
* using the name `unspendable_punishment_reserve` for both outbound
and inbound channel reserves, differentiating them based on their
position in the counterparty parameters struct or not,
* Using the name `force_close_spend_delay` instead of
`spend_csv_on_our_commitment_funds` to better communicate what
is occurring.
If our channel party sends us our own channel_update message, we'll
erroneously use the information in that message to update our view
of the forwarding parameters our counterparty requires of us,
ultimately generating invoices with bogus forwarding information.
This fixes that behavior by checking the channel_update's
directionality before handling it.
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.
This adds four new fields in `ChannelDetails`:
1. holder_selected_ and counterparty_selected_channel_reserve_delay
are useful to determine what amount of the channel is
unavailable for payments.
2. confirmations_required is useful when awaiting funding
confirmation to determine how long you will need to wait.
3. to_self_delay is useful to determine how long it will take to
receive funds after a force-close.
Fixes#983.
Currently we always generate a
`MessageSendEvent::BroadcastChannelUpdate` when a channel is closed
even if the channel is private. Our immediate peers should ignore
such messages as they haven't seen a corresponding
`channel_announcement`, but we are still giving up some privacy by
informing our immediate peers of which channels were ours.
Here we split `ChannelManager::get_channel_update` into a
`get_channel_update_for_broadcast` and
`get_channel_update_for_unicast`. The first is used when we are
broadcasting a `channel_update`, allowing us to refuse to do so
for private channels. The second is used when failing a payment (in
which case the recipient has already shown that they are aware of
the channel so no such privacy concerns exist).
