option_will_fund: liquidity ads #878

niftynei · 2021-06-07T21:58:33Z

Draft spec for adding 'liquidity ads' to the dual-funding flow. Allows peers to signal fees that they'll charge for committing liquidity into a dual-funded open, which are then locked until the lease expires.

Currently a work in progress.

Builds on #851.

Kixunil · 2021-06-08T12:06:59Z

07-routing-gossip.md

+  - MUST set `funding_fee_base_sat` to the base fee (in satoshi) it will charge
+    for any reciprocated funding.
+  - MUST set `funding_fee_proportional_basis` to the amount (in
+    thousandths of a satoshi) it will charge per contributed satoshi.


Why not millionths?

Because this fits better in u16? As these msgs are gossiped all over the network, bytes matter. Though basis points would be 10,000th, so perhaps rename to "funding_fee_proportional_thousanths" explicitly? (Allowing up to 65% seems nice; 6.5% is probably a bit low).

... names don't match fields, particularly missing _max?

Good point, my thinking was to be consistent and sufficiently granular. I would like 10000ths more than 1000ths.

I updated this to say 'thousandths' -- generally it's advisable to expose these to end users as ppm though -- using parts-per-thousandths is a shortcut to reduce the size of the node_announcement TLV

@niftynei do you mean that when exposed to user as ppm some rounding will be implemented or a more precise value will be negotiated when actually opening the channel?

The channel fee is expressed as "channel_fee_proportional_millionths" and is broadcast via the "channel_update" gossip message. The channel lease commits to a "channel_fee_max_proportional_thousandths". Let's call these "ppm" and "ppt" for short. 1 ppt is equal to 1,000ppm. Practically, setting a 'channel_fee_max_proportional_thousandth" to 1 would be a commitment to not set the "channel_fee_proportional_millionth" larger than 1000 (for the duration of the lease)

Kixunil · 2021-06-08T12:07:55Z

07-routing-gossip.md

@@ -359,6 +384,12 @@ to be ordered in ascending order, unknown ones can be safely ignored.
 Additional fields beyond `addresses` may also be added in the future—with
 optional padding within `addresses`, if they require certain alignment.

+If a node signals `option_will_fund`, they are signaling that they
+will provide funding to a node at the stated terms. They also commit
+to a feerate they will charge for transmitting funds over the channel


Nit: "to a maximum feerate"

Kixunil · 2021-06-08T12:09:30Z

proposals/010-will-fund-for-food.md

+opens are only possible on the v2 channel protocol.
+
+Any advertised liquidity lease is for a duration of 4032 blocks, or
+approximately 28 days.


Seems like it'd be better to keep this configurable. Is there any reason not to?

Because the more variables you have the harder it is to computationally compare rates. It's actually pretty easy to add a parameter for this later, if it proves popular, but I think we need to see what it looks like in practice (should the fee guaranty be separately configurable, for example).

rustyrussell

Wording nitpicks and terminology to make things clearer (esp definitions of lessor and active lease or whatever), and naming fixes. Only two actual spec changes:

Request to use the same subtype in both init tlv and announce.
Maybe have them only pay for what they requested?
Make signature commit to end not start of lease.

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:04:21Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+        - if they decide to accept the offer:
+            - MUST include a `will_fund` tlv
+            - MUST set `funding_satoshis` to a value greater than 0msat
+            - MAY provide a `funding_satoshis` of any amount.


Does this imply WUMBO?

Not intentionally; I mean to signal that you MAY provide less (or more) than requested_sats.

Will update to MAY send less...

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:05:27Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+            - MUST set `funding_fee_proportional_basis` to the amount
+              (in thousandths of satoshi) it will charge per `funding_satoshi`
+            - MUST set `funding_weight` to the weight they
+              will contribute to this channel, to fund the request.


Not quite, this is the weight that the initiating node will pay for (I suspect this language predates that change)

Good point, will update.

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:12:08Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+the rate funds are routed through the channel as this provides the opener
+the opportunity to move the funds elsewhere (and renders the
+lease fairly useless). A sensible policy here depends on the motivation of the
+opener in acquiring the leased funds.


This causes a weird case, where Alice requests 1M sats, Bob has 1M+dust sats available. If Bob puts that dust into the channel, Alice pays a bit extra for it, which is weird. Is this worth fixing? Maybe not? The only fix I can think of is to use min(accept_channel2.funding_satoshis, open_channel2.request_funds.requested_sats) * funding_fee_proportional_basis instead of accept_channel2.funding_satoshis * funding_fee_proportional_basis but that's also a bit messy?

Min sounds reasonable to me.

Yes this is sensible. 👍

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:14:30Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+      - the `funding_fee_base_sat` is too high
+      - the `funding_weight` is too high
+      - the `channel_fee_proportional_basis_max` is too high
+      - the `channel_fee_base_max_msat` is too high


Maybe - SHOULD accept a funding_satoshi in excess of requested_sats ?

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:23:17Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+  - if `blockheight` is more than 504 blocks behind the current blockheight:
+    - SHOULD fail the channel


Not quite right, this needs a separate section (hmm, may need an intro which defines lease nomenclature? Lessor, end of lease, etc?)

A node which offered a lease on a channel, which is still being enforced:

if the last received blockheight is more than 504 blocks behind the current blockheight:

SHOULD fail the channel.

With rationale:

The lessor's lease is only shortened when a new blockheight is committed, otherwise it's always 4032 blocks in the future. If the peer doesn't update the blockheight, at some point it has to start the closing process to retrieve its funds. 504 blocks seems a reasonable (but not compulsory!) answer here.

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:29:16Z

07-routing-gossip.md

+  - MUST set `funding_fee_base_sat` to the base fee (in satoshi) it will charge
+    for any reciprocated funding.
+  - MUST set `funding_fee_proportional_basis` to the amount (in
+    thousandths of a satoshi) it will charge per contributed satoshi.


... names don't match fields, particularly missing _max?

07-routing-gossip.md

02-peer-protocol.md

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:33:12Z

03-transactions.md

+
+In a 'leased' channel, the `to_remote` output that pays the `accepter` node
+is modified so that it is equal to the greater of the
+1 or the `lease_end` - `blockheight`.


Well, yeah. If we define lease nomenclature it's easier to change this to say why:

If a lease applies to the channel, the to_remoteoutput of theinitiator ensures the lessor won't get their funds until after lease expiry.

rustyrussell · 2021-06-09T04:33:30Z

03-transactions.md

+##### Leased channel (`option_will_fund`)
+In a leased channel, the `to_local` output that pays the `accepter` node
+is modified so that its CSV is equal to the greater of the
+`to_self_delay` or the `lease_end` - `blockheight`.


See comment below on explaining why, not what?

02-peer-protocol.md

Kixunil · 2021-06-10T08:21:11Z

07-routing-gossip.md

+    (in millisatoshi) it will charge for any HTLC during the funding period.
+  - MUST set `channel_fee_proportional_basis_max` to the max amount (in
+    thousandths of a satoshi) it will charge per transferred satoshi during
+    the funding period.


I'm thinking would it make sense to advertise a minimum required contribution to the channel capacity from the taker?

What's the rationale here?

Including this would add another 4-8 bytes to the node_announcement, which we're attempting to keep as small as possible.

Without it one could open a channel with e.g. 100 sats and request 10M of liquidity. This is not a problem if the node charges for liquidity sufficiently but perhaps the node would be willing to charge less if there's liquidity in the opposite direction.

Maybe we could represent it as a percentage of taker contribution which would fit into one byte.

Alternatively, maybe instead of putting it into channel announcement there could be a way to get details by connecting to the node directly and thus not causing load on the rest of the network?

Alternatively, maybe instead of putting it into channel announcement there could be a way to get details by connecting to the node directly and thus not causing load on the rest of the network?

the init message would fit this description; adding the minimum required channel size to the init TLV is a superb idea. if you want to take a stab at drafting a PR for it, i can help get it added to clightning :)

Glad that you like the idea! Unfortunately I'm both incredibly overwhelmed by other stuff and not familiar with C-lightning codebase. I'm mainly interested in the protocol because I believe it may solve some high-level problems I observe as a node operator.

joostjager · 2021-07-08T13:10:34Z

proposals/010-will-fund-for-food.md

+funds to an open channel request. Due to the nature of the protocol, these
+opens are only possible on the v2 channel protocol.
+
+Any advertised liquidity lease is for a duration of 4032 blocks, or


Is this fixed lease duration that is also used in Lightning Pool really the best model? If I want to keep the channel after 28 days, but the lessor thinks differently because the funding fee has been collected already anyway, what can I do? I'd need to hit the chain again to restore my connection to the network.

An alternative could be to stay closer to the actual cost of keeping the channel open. For example: the lessee periodically pays interest calculated over the lessor's channel balance. These payments could be integrated as a channel update message with the channel being failed automatically if the contract is not followed.

The rationale for presenting channel leases as fixed time block entities is to create a standard contract of liquidity leases that makes it easy to compare offers. In other words, it makes it easier to evaluate what certain liquidity offers are worth across the network.

what can I do? I'd need to hit the chain again to restore my connection to the network.

I think what you're proposing here is a lease extension negotiation protocol -- this something that we can add on top of this existing initial protocol, and perhaps should be something to consider for splices (though that's also an on-chain operation). Which is to say, I think this is a really important point to make and that negotiations for "extending a channel lease" would be very welcome!

the lessee periodically pays interest calculated over the lessor's channel balance.

Yes, as currently proposed, the period of the payment is 4032 blocks; a renewed interest payment would need to be made at the 4033'd block to keep the channel open. This deserves further investigation, but shouldn't be a blocker for shipping this initial lease proposal imo.

I think it could work like that indeed. After each 4032 blocks, the lessor will demand an extension fee based on their average channel balance over the past period.

This could be a protocol that is totally independent from dual funding. Because the counterparty of a single-funder channel that is spent down will probably also consider closing unless they are compensated somehow.

This could be a protocol that is totally independent from dual funding.

Totally, though I think we might be able to reuse the CSV locks presented here?

The CSV locks indeed look useful to keep the lessor honest. Although there are still other ways to play unfair. One thing I thought about is for the lessor to lease out a channel and then push out all balance and stop routing. That way they collect the lease fee without having to commit capital for the duration of the channel. The CSV lock probably doesn't hurt that much anymore at that point. This obviously doesn't work if the lessee is not a routing node.

Maybe it is worth to already think through (not implement yet) what that lease extension protocol could look like. Only on the message level. With the goal to identify anything that must already be taken into account for openchannel2.

Would it be possible to have the lessor and lessee switch roles during the lifetime of a channel? Initially A charges B for the liquidity, but over time, A gets low on liquidity and B now wants to charge A to keep the same channel open. Maybe they even mutually charge each other based on their average local channel balances?

and then push out all balance and stop routing

You could push out up to 99% of the channel balance, the reserve would still be locked in. Assuming the channel fee is <1% of the total channel balance (which is .. likely?) then you'd never be able to push out more than you'd originally locked in. Maybe this is fine?

It's recommended that lessors implement routing policies for the capital that they've leased -- e.g. if you're leasing the capacity with the aim of accepting payments, you may reconsider any routed payment that comes in via that channel.

Initially A charges B for the liquidity, but over time, A gets low on liquidity and B now wants to charge A to keep the same channel open. Maybe they even mutually charge each other based on their average local channel balances?

This is interesting. Here's a few thoughts.

First, having a balance on your side of the channel represents an opportunity to earn routing fees. By charging your peer for the maintenance of a balance on your side of the channel, you're effectively charging them for inbound capacity. A fee for capital maintenance would drive up routing fees, as you're essentially trading off future cash from your channel partner for routing income. Plus there's the potential that routing a payment would then tip the scales in their favor such that you'd then be paying that routing income back over to them (given a long enough time scale).

Assuming zero routing takes place and over a long enough time frame, a policy which charges a fee on the un-capitalized side of the channel would mean that the non-dominant side of the channel would slowly leak funds to the larger side, resulting in an increasingly unbalanced channel. The only way to avoid this would be by maintaining 50-50 balanced channels. So basically, either you allocate a full 50% of a channel's capacity or you slowly lose balance in that channel.

One interesting side effect of this is that it'd incentivize a "mean reversion" on every channel -- e.g. there's an incentive to keep your channel balances at 50/50 to avoid losing fees to your peer. This may not be possible on every channel and would give a strong deadline for channel closure, as opposed to now, where most closures seem to be predicated around either a need to reallocate funds, a total usage of all channel funds, or whimsy.

Assuming the channel fee is <1% of the total channel balance (which is .. likely?) then you'd never be able to push out more than you'd originally locked in

I am thinking of dual-funding where the leasor funds (almost) the complete channel. Then the leasor pushes out 99% and frees up their capital to repeat the same trick with the next lessee, and the next. You sell 100 channels and collect channel fees with the capital that you could normally only use to sell a single channel.

I'm not sure it matters. Let's look at various cases:

The user has no prior channels - circularly routing is impossible - the lessor can't do that

The user (U) already has a channel to another, higher-quality node (A) than the quality of lessor (L). L -> U -> A -> L causes improvement in quality aside from A becoming SPOF (likely the reason why U wanted another channel). If U charges sufficient fees, it can cover the cost of opening third channel. Note that if B -> L -> U is possible then B -> L -> A -> U is also possible even though a bit worse.

A has same strategy as L and will also attempt to push out - will end up in balanced situation while U gets free money or one node routes and the other gives up, still U getting money. This scenario may be even incentive not to attempt it in the first place.

A is lower quality than L and doesn't employ this strategy. The question is: is this a contradiction? A node that automatically destroys your ability to receive over its channel should probably be considered worse. Again, if the fee is sufficient it may pay for another channel.

ariard

Really cool proposal :) Still thinking more about timelocks/channel policies interactions.

ariard · 2021-07-13T18:02:41Z

03-transactions.md

+        # Penalty transaction
+        <revocationpubkey>
+    OP_ELSE
+        MAX(`to_self_delay`, `lease_end` - `blockheight`)


Do you need to encumber leasor (iiuc the counterparty offering the lease?)'s HTLC transactions outputs with OP_MAX too ?

Otherwise I think as a leasor I can send all my balance (minus max_htlc_value_in_flight_msat) in an offered HTLC output, of which I'm never going to give you the preimage. At expiration broadcast commitment + HTLC-timeout, wait for the CSV delay, and withdraw the balance to a single-owned output ?

Yes, this a hole in the protocol at the moment. We chose not to update the HTLC contracts, as that was a much larger change for the first draft. iiuc it also impacts the lockup for failed payments across the entire payment chain, which seems suboptimal as well.

You can limit your exposure to this today by limiting the max htlc inflight for this channel.

We could use the multisig + secondary transaction trick we already use with HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout to avoid cltv_expiry lockup across the payment chain. But yes this would complicate the proposal a bit.

Basically for HTLCs where the lessor is remote, the remote_htlcpubkey branch would become a 2 <local_htlcpubkey> <remote_htlcpubkey> 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and the lessor would hold signatures for a new HTLC-lease-lock transaction that locks their funds up for the remainder of the lease.

For HTLCs where the lessor is local, we'd simply adjust the to_self timelock in HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions to enforce the lease lock (identical to the commitment transaction changes).

Note that LND already adjusts to_self in the HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success transactions for Pool. This partially plugs the hole, but the lessor can still evade the timelock by routing an HTLC to itself and then goading the lessee into force closing.

The solution I described above should block this case as well, but I'm thinking just having HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout lease locks may be enough for the first protocol. It would be nice to avoid the more complex HTLC surgery.

We could use the multisig + secondary transaction trick we already use with HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout to avoid cltv_expiry lockup across the payment chain. But yes this would complicate the proposal a bit.

I think I'm going to propose doing exactly this (creating second stage txs for the leasor in their remote's commitment tx HTLC outputs), as it's a complete patch for this hole. It is more surgery, but I think worth it in terms of eradicating a potential hole in the protocol.

I'll also add HTLC locks on the to-self HTLC second stage txs, as you've suggested (and LND does!)

ariard · 2021-07-13T18:09:29Z

proposals/010-will-fund-for-food.md

+are modified. They now incorporate the funding lease and time since
+the channel has been opened. As blocks are published, the CSV
+for the accepter's outputs is decremented. Once the funding lease
+has passed, the CSV value outputs return to the 'normal', non-leased values.


I think you should introduce a liveliness duty on the leavee ? I.e if you're not online every X, the leasor is allowed to close the channel, otherwise as the lease enforcement is relying on relative timelocks they're never going to be triggered and expire at the expected height of the end lease ?

Yes, iiuc this is encapsulated in the suggestion to close the channel if they haven't updated the blockheight in 1008 blocks.

ariard · 2021-07-13T18:14:28Z

02-peer-protocol.md

+  - MUST NOT send `update_blockheight`.
+
+A receiving node:
+  - if the `update_blockheight` is less than the last received `blockheight`:


"if the lease_end - blockheight is less than the receiver announced to_self_delay MUST fail the channel?" to avoid justice delays downgrads ?

Hmm I think I'm missing something about your point here. Anywhere there's a to_self_delay, the csv is max(to_self_delay, lease_end - blockheight).

Right, you're using OP_MAX directly in the script? So should be good with concern of justice delay downgrades, but still you can save few bytes of witnessScript by checking this during message reception or transaction construction ?

The max is done prior to the construction of the script, the actual onchain script is unchanged.

t-bast

Cool stuff, this is way smarter than the naive version I had in mind, thanks for putting this together!

02-peer-protocol.md

07-routing-gossip.md

t-bast · 2021-08-11T09:08:58Z

02-peer-protocol.md

@@ -1862,6 +1968,57 @@ it's simplest to only allow it to set fee levels; however, as the same
 fee rate applies to HTLC transactions, the receiving node must also
 care about the reasonableness of the fee.

+### Updating Block Height: `update_blockheight` (`option_will_fund`)


nit: update_lease_blockheight?

t-bast · 2021-08-11T09:19:29Z

03-transactions.md

+ensures the `leasor` funds are not spendable until the lease expires.
+
+In a leased channel, the `to_local` output that pays the `accepter` node
+is modified so that its CSV is equal to the greater of the


Since the lease expires at an absolute block, why do you use a CSV and not a CLTV (which would remove the need for the update_blockheight mechanism)?

We used CSV since that was already introduced to the scripts for option_anchor_outputs, and therefore required less surgery to the onchain scripts. 👼

I could further make the argument that if your peer isn't actively updating the CSV lock, then it's a good signal to go ahead and shut the channel with them but that's not exactly a water-tight argument for keeping it as a CSV ...

Since the lease expires at an absolute block, why do you use a CSV and not a CLTV (which would remove the need for the update_blockheight mechanism)?

I really like this suggestion!! the update_blockheight hack feels very hacky imo haha. But I do like how cleanly it reuses the CSV lock that anchors introduced. hmm

One benefit of CLTV is less commitment transaction churn. i.e. we have ~4032 extra revoked commitments to remember if update_blockheight happens every block.

Agreed, I plan on prototyping the CLTV version soon(ish). I'm not 100% sure it will work, as we're already using the nLockTime of commitment txs to encode data, I'll report back when it's done.

FYI - It looks like LND already uses CLTV leases for Pool. They also have CLTVs added to HTLC-success and HTLC-timeout transactions, which partially plugs the HTLC hole @ariard pointed out.

I think this is a much simpler approach.

Agreed, I plan on prototyping the CLTV version soon(ish). I'm not 100% sure it will work, as we're already using the nLockTime of commitment txs to encode data, I'll report back when it's done.

I don't know what I was smoking when I wrote that message, using CLTV of course works, we don't care about the nLockTime of the commitment tx, the nLockTime that matters is the one of the transaction that spends the leasor's main output.

joostjager · 2021-11-04T13:07:19Z

proposals/010-will-fund-for-food.md

+
+## Overview
+
+This proposal adds a TLV to the `node_announcement`,


Is it worth splitting this part off into its own PR? Extensible gossip probably has uses beyond liquidity ads.

Draft of option_will_fund, to allow for liquidity ads

Re-write the spec to use CLTV instead of CSVs for liquidity ads. This does a number of wonderful things. First, it decouples us from option_anchor, which is returned to being optional again. Second, it allows us to have a static, lifetime value for the lease which doesn't need to be removed at lease end (it is automatically moot just by passing the required blockheight) Thirdly, we add a new 'second stage' transaction type for HTLC output clauses which pay out to the remote node. These are only added to the *lessor*'s commitment transactions, as we can simply add the required CLTV locks to HTLC transaction outputs in the lessor's commitment. There's no such affordance in the commitment transaction of the leassor, unfortuantely, in which case we must add them. As written, note that these live for the lifetime of the channel. We could optionally remove them upon request of the lessor at some point after the CLTV has passed. This is left as an exercise to the future spec writers.

Send those rates in `node_announcement` and `init`, and update codecs accordingly. This matches the proposal in lightning/bolts#878 (comment)

The initiator of `open_channel2`, `tx_init_rbf` and `splice_init` can request funding from the remote node. The non-initiator node will: - let the open-channel-interceptor plugin decide whether to lease liquidity for new channels or not, and how much - always honor liquidity requests on existing channels (RBF and splice) We currently don't modify commitment transactions to enforce the lease. This is different from lightning/bolts#878 and instead matches lightning/bolts#1145. We currently use the temporary tlv tag 1337 while we're waiting for feedback on our spec proposal. Liquidity ads are included in the `node_announcement` message, which lets buyers compare sellers and connect to sellers that provide rates they are comfortable with. We store every liquidity purchase (whether we're buyer or seller) in the audit DB. This is important information when choosing which peers are worth keeping channels with.

t-bast · 2024-09-18T09:04:42Z

@niftynei can we consider this superseded by #1153 or not yet?

ariard · 2024-09-19T04:08:34Z

@t-bast why do you ask niftynei opinion when asking to close her issues, but not mine when closing my own issues like #1043 ?

t-bast · 2024-09-19T07:09:43Z

Because cln has shipped code that implements this specification and is being actively used by a few nodes in the network. So we need to validate that they're willing to migrate to the newer liquidity ads proposal. The issues I closed were issues for which there is no running code on mainnet or testnet and for which I hadn't seen any recent progress, but I can of course be wrong and thought that since it's trivial to re-open, I'd let people tell me when I closed an issue too aggressively.

ariard · 2024-09-20T01:21:08Z

Okay, just as a matter of courtesy better to ask people before to force-close an issue, wait for weeks for a status update and if no answer, then close it. More or less what folk do on the core side with the “shill, kill or merge” tradition.

TheBlueMatt · 2024-10-21T19:08:39Z

@niftynei confirmed we can close this and consider it superseded though they have their code shipped.

niftynei mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2021

interactive-tx: Add dual-funding flow, using the interactive tx protocol (feature 28/29) #851

Merged

niftynei force-pushed the nifty/liquid-ads branch from c091f52 to 46deeff Compare June 8, 2021 00:24

Kixunil reviewed Jun 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

rustyrussell reviewed Jun 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

niftynei commented Jun 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

02-peer-protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Kixunil reviewed Jun 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

niftynei force-pushed the nifty/liquid-ads branch from 9a5a413 to 0484317 Compare June 10, 2021 21:01

niftynei mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2021

liquidity ad implementation ElementsProject/lightning#4637

Closed

joostjager reviewed Jul 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

niftynei mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2021

liquidity ads ElementsProject/lightning#4639

Merged

ariard reviewed Jul 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

t-bast reviewed Aug 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

niftynei force-pushed the nifty/liquid-ads branch from 0484317 to cb69177 Compare August 20, 2021 00:39

niftynei marked this pull request as ready for review September 1, 2021 16:11

joostjager reviewed Nov 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

t-bast mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2021

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/11/08 #933

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2021

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/11/22 #936

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2021

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/12/06 #943

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Dec 14, 2021

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/12/20 #945

Closed

19 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/01/03 #949

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/01/17 #952

Closed

18 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/01/31 #955

Closed

17 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Feb 9, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/02/14 #957

Closed

17 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/02/28 #965

Closed

19 tasks

Roasbeef mentioned this pull request Mar 14, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/03/14 #969

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/03/28 #971

Closed

22 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Apr 7, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/04/11 #973

Closed

20 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/04/25 #982

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request May 4, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/05/09 #986

Closed

22 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request May 18, 2022

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/05/23 #992

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/02/12 #1134

Closed

22 tasks

niftynei added 2 commits February 13, 2024 17:58

option_will_fund

f0249b5

Draft of option_will_fund, to allow for liquidity ads

niftynei force-pushed the nifty/liquid-ads branch from b93f5b8 to 13930b2 Compare February 13, 2024 23:58

remyers mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2024

wallet: Target a pre-defined utxo set composition by adjusting change outputs bitcoin/bitcoin#29442

Closed

t-bast mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/02/26 #1142

Closed

21 tasks

This was referenced Mar 5, 2024

Advertise liquidity ads rates #1145

Closed

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/03/11 #1146

Closed

t-bast mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/03/25 #1150

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast added a commit to ACINQ/eclair that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2024

Configure different rates based on lease duration

c10aa95

Send those rates in `node_announcement` and `init`, and update codecs accordingly. This matches the proposal in lightning/bolts#878 (comment)

Roasbeef mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/04/08 #1152

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/04/22 #1155

Closed

22 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request May 2, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/05/06 #1161

Closed

25 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request May 14, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/05/20 #1164

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/06/03 #1167

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/06/17 #1172

Closed

22 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/07/01 #1175

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/07/15 #1183

Closed

22 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Jul 23, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/07/29 #1185

Closed

23 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/08/12 #1187

Closed

21 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/08/26 #1191

Closed

20 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Sep 6, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/09/09 #1195

Closed

20 tasks

t-bast mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/10/21 #1206

Open

20 tasks

TheBlueMatt closed this Oct 21, 2024

		- if `blockheight` is more than 504 blocks behind the current blockheight:
		- SHOULD fail the channel


		## Overview

		This proposal adds a TLV to the `node_announcement`,

option_will_fund: liquidity ads #878

option_will_fund: liquidity ads #878

Conversation

niftynei commented Jun 7, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

niftynei Jul 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rustyrussell left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

niftynei Jun 13, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ariard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

t-bast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

t-bast commented Sep 18, 2024

ariard commented Sep 19, 2024

t-bast commented Sep 19, 2024

ariard commented Sep 20, 2024

TheBlueMatt commented Oct 21, 2024

niftynei Jul 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

rustyrussell left a comment •

edited

Loading

niftynei Jun 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading