Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 20. (Read 33639 times)

and likely even LoyceV is seeing some futility in having had given a platform to franky1.... sure maybe it is not completely futile..

I agree with you that the argument about milisatoshis not being bitcoin is dumb as fuck, but it is like he is saying that if the cent is divided into 100 or 1,000 then it is not really a cent because the smallest unit that you can transact in the physical world is the cent, so dividing the cent into 100 or 1,000 is not the same thing as the cent itself because the cent does not allow being divided further.. .which again is a stupid argument.....and even a waste of time to get into discussions regarding such nonsensical claims.. and of course, that is not the ONLY nonsensical claim that franky1 makes.. some of the claims get confusing, but they largely add up to the same thing.. nonsense, misleading, irrelevant etc..

Actually, darkv0rt3x, I was going to make some similar comments as you in terms of why LoyceV was giving a platform to someone like franky1 who has shown himself to be disingenuine and misleading and banned from certain parts of the forum for good reason.. and in that regard, what good is it going to do to give a platform to someone who has already shown himself over and over and over to not be posting with any intentions beyond confusing and misleading the issues... but you ended up making some of the criticisms before me.. and I have not quite made it through the whole thread, yet...

so maybe I will say something further on the topic, not sure if I have anything to add beyond what you had already said, and likely even LoyceV is seeing some futility in having had given a platform to franky1.... sure maybe it is not completely futile.. I mean I did read several of the responses of some of the posters, and even Rath_ did get excited enough about the thread in order to share a link to it here... so Rath_ likely does not mind providing some of that information again in the context of responding to the largely disingenuine points of franky1.

Absolutely, and even after @Rath_ backing up many of his replies with actual examples and even code, he kept trying to kind of "unsay" (not sure if this word even exists) what @Rath_ was saying. So, I said quite early that that discussion was turning useless.

Saying that the milisatoshis are not Bitcoin, is in my perspective, almost the same that saying that cents of dollar are not dollar or cents of Euros are not Euro. Anyway, the discussing is over for me!

I have had enough of my share of debates against franky1 about the Lighting Network, or anything, that many other people in the forum got annoyed because the topics ended with the both of us debating. He has been gaslighting/spreading disinformation everywhere. He always denies the fact that all Bitcoins in Lightning are actual Bitcoins, calling them IOUs. I give him an explanation why they’re not IOUs, he replies with a VERY LONG “technical” post of confusion to troll you.

Here's my current understanding of how the system works:

0) Lightning nodes constantly use the gossip protocol (bolt07) to forward/receive "node_announcement", "channel_announcement", "channel_update" messages and maintain a local view of the whole network.
1) Alice receives a payment invoice from Eric which includes information like: Eric node's public key, payment hash, amount, expiry (date) and cltv expiry.
2) Alice constructs a path to Eric using her local map of the network. She tries to find the cheapest and the shortest route. The longer the route, the higher the risk that funds will get stuck during routing.
2a) She prepares "onion_routing_packet" which includes encrypted routing information for each hop.
3) Alice sends "update_add_htlc" message to Bob, which includes the "onion_routing_packet" (which is the same for all peers), the amount, the payment hash and cltv expiry.
4) Alice and Bob sign a new commitment transaction with an HTLC output.
5) Bob sends "update_add_htlc" to Carol with the same "onion_routing_packet".
6) Carol and Diana, Diana and Eric do the same.
7) Eric sends "update_fullfil_htlc" message to Diana, which includes the payment secret.
8) Eric and Diana remove the HTLC output and update balances by signing a new commitment transaction.
9) Diana sends "update_fullfil_htlc" to Carol with the same payment secret and they update the commitment transaction.
10) Carol and Bob, Bob and Alice do the same.

Comments:

3) The amount Alice sends is actually bigger than the one in the invoice as she must account for the fees. Each hop forwards the HTLC with a smaller amount and keeps the difference. If some hop tries to claim higher fees than Alice expected, the next node in the route will fail the payment as the routing instructions say how much one's node is supposed to forward.

If Bob doesn't have enough coins to forward the payment on his side of the channel with Carol, he must send "update_fail_htlc" message and Alice needs to try sending the payment through another route.

All channels use the same payment hash. It is safe because HTLC outputs require both the payment secret and HTLC signatures, which can be produced only by channel partners, to be spent. See this post for explanation.

Do you already have a channel from your C-Lightning node to your Electrum node?
Because a reason for the C-Lightning node to reject a channel opening could be that it is configured not to allow more than a single channel between two peers.

Other than that, it's possible as mentioned by darkv0rt3x that sometimes the gossip network doesn't propagate the IP of nodes completely so in addition to the node ID you need to specify the IP as well. However, if this was the issue, I'd expect an error message more akin to 'Could not find node' or something of this sort, and not a connection reject.

Side question: why are you trying to use Electrum for Lightning all the time? Why not whip up a second C-Lightning or lnd node?

Is there anyone who understands what's wrong with my node?
[~]

Since command mentioned by @Rath_ use single quote as boundary of the array, you don't need to add backslash before double quote inside the array.

Is there anyone who understands what's wrong with my node? While I can create channels with other nodes I can't create a channel from Electrum as it can't establish a connection: https://1ml.com/testnet/node/039a7e0982d3b0f967dfc18b8b69c9e8cafd035985eff1832258daf08de119b10e

I keep getting this when I enter my node_id@onion_url:


And it's weird, because it doesn't return the problem. It just says there is one, which makes me believe the developers aren't aware it exists.

302030 2022-01-17T21:10:20.272Z DEBUG   connectd: Now try LN connect out for host ln1qwd8uzvz6wc0je7lcx9ck6wfar906q6eshhlrqeztrd0pr0prxcsuagtc2y.lseed.darosior.ninja
302031 2022-01-17T21:10:20.273Z DEBUG   039a7e0982d3b0f967dfc18b8b69c9e8cafd035985eff1832258daf08de119b10e-connectd: Connected out, starting crypto
302032 2022-01-17T21:10:20.540Z DEBUG   039a7e0982d3b0f967dfc18b8b69c9e8cafd035985eff1832258daf08de119b10e-connectd: Failed connected out: Error connecting to ln1qwd8uzvz6wc0je7lcx9ck6wfar906q6eshhlrqeztrd0pr0prxcsuagtc2y.lseed.bitcoinsta       ts.com: Tor server reply: host unreachable. ln1qwd8uzvz6wc0je7lcx9ck6wfar906q6eshhlrqeztrd0pr0prxcsuagtc2y.lseed.bitcoinstats.com:9735: Connection establishment: Connection refused. ln1qwd8uzvz6wc0je7lcx9ck6wfar906q6eshhlrqeztrd0pr       0prxcsuagtc2y.lseed.darosior.ninja:9735: Cryptographic handshake: peer closed connection (wrong key?).

I never tried this one before, but if even like that, it doesn't work, you may have to escape the double quotes with a backslash. I usually run into problems when I use these commands that requires arrays of json objects.
For instance, to create a raw transaction I actually have to use:

As you see, there are some double quotes that needs to be escaped (the ones inside the json array object), otherwise, bash will "consume" a layer of them and then, the json object is "sent" to the RPC command wrongly constructed!

This should work for you:


Make sure to change minchannels if you add more destinations.

bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction "[{\"txid\":\"tx_hash_here\", \"vout\":1}]" "[{\"bitcoin_adress_here\":0.05},{\"bitcoin_change_adress_here\":0.049}]" 0 true

How do you insert an array, or in this situation the destination, properly? There are lots of ways I can think of...

lightning-cli multifundchannel -k destinations='[{"id": "node1" ,"amount": amount1},{"id": "node2" , "amount": amount2}]' feerate=1000perkb minchannels=2

For example, I have read about instances in which an LN node failed, the user restored from a backup that did not have the correct channel state, which resulted in the backup-restored node trying to close the channel via an old channel state.

What's the best channel_capacity/network_contribution ratio? For instance, would it be more contributive to open 100 of 0.01 BTC rather than 2 of 0.50 BTC?

Also, how do I choose the proper nodes to do this?

Also, how do I choose the proper nodes to do this? I had read about triangles, but I'm not sure if that's what I'm talking about.

Yesterday, I performed a triangle swap with two other bitcointalk members. Each of us opened a 0.05 BTC channel to the other person. This way, we gained additional 0.10 BTC capacity, which means that this swap has doubled my node's capacity. I paid 222 sat for the opening transaction. We dropped the fees to 0 and TheJuice's script took care of the rebalancing. On the same day, I routed 6 transactions from the channel I opened and I got paid 222.76 satoshi. The channel paid itself off in just a few hours.

If you ever wondered how often someone is penalized for fraudulent behaviour, forkmonitor keeps track of all penalty transactions ever broadcast. Apparently, there have been 419 unsuccessful cheat attempts with a total of ~5.13 BTC at stake since the end of 2017.

Just like scammers and governments support the Tor network by running their own compromised nodes As long as enough scammers and competing governments join, and as long as users are aware of the risks, none of this stops the network.