This was originally done as part of the bookkeeper introduction, but it deserves its
own patch (and that one didn't remove the bitcoin/chainparams.o from the individual
requirements lines).
Suggested-by: @niftynei
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
`lightningd` has an option --wallet that lets you supply a database dsn
string to connect to a sqlite3/postgres database that's hosted/stored
elsewhere.
This adds the `--bookkeeper-db` option which does the same, except for
the bookkeeping data for a node!
Note that the default is to go in the `lightning-dir` in a database
called `accounts.sqlite3`
First off, when we pull data out of JSON, unescape it so we don't end up
with extraneous escapes in our bookkeeping data. I promise, it's worth
it.
Then, when we print descriptions out to the csvs, we gotta wrap
everything in quotes... but also we have to change all the double-quotes
to singles so that adding the quotes doesn't do anything untoward.
We also just pass it thru json_escape to get rid of linebreaks etc.
Note that in the tests we do a byte comparison instead of converting the
CSV dumps to strings because python will escape the strings on
conversion...
So we print out invoice fees on the same line for those CSVs! This means
we have to do a little bit of gymnastics (but not too bad):
- we save the fee amount onto the income event now so we can use
it later
- we ignore every "invoice_fee" event for the koinly/cointracker
Note that since we're not skipping income events in the loops we also
move the newline character to the start of every `_entry` function so
skipped records dont incur empth lines.
Changelog-Added: bkpr: print out invoice fees on the same line for `koinly` and `cointracker` csv types
It's possible we'll get an "external" event for an account/channel and
then try to do close checks on it and it'll bomb out because we didn't
go look up the originating account to make sure that that had open info
Now, we make sure and do that when we hear about an originating account
If two events for the same (unlogged) account come in and get run
through the "lookup peer" code, we should anticipate that.
We do two things here:
- one, if it's a duplicate "event" to create the channel open
we check for that and just exit early
- two, we were using a copy of the account that was
fetched/pulled from before the RPC ran, so instead we
just re-pull the most up to date account info for the
close checks.
This fixes the crash I was getting in re-running these things
If we expect further events for an onchain output (because we can steal
it away from the 'external'/rightful owner), we mark them.
This prevents us from marking a channel as 'onchain-resolved' before
all events that we're interested in have actually hit the chain.
Case that this matters:
Peer publishes a (cheating) unilateral close and a timeout htlc (which
we can steal).
We then steal the timeout htlc.
W/o the stealable flag, we'd have marked the channel as resolved when
the peer published the timeout htlc, which is incorrect as we're still
waiting for the resolution of that timeout htlc (b/c we *can* steal it).
We were failing to mark channels as resolved b/c we weren't using later
events to external (but originated from this account) events as signals
to run the channel resolution check.
This fixes that, and adds a test.
Adds schema definitions and manpages for bkpr- commands; also renames
the commands to all start with 'bkpr-', so they're easier to identify/
make runes about.
it's nice to know what node your channel was opened with. in theory we
could use listpeers to merge the data after the fact, except that
channels disappear after they've been closed for a bit. it's better to
just save the info.
we print it out in `listbalances`, as that's a great place account level
information
Anchor outputs are ignored by the clightning wallet, but we keep track
of them in the bookkeeper. This causes problems when we do the balance
checks on restart w/ the balance_snapshot -- it results in us printing
out a journal_entry to 'get rid of' the anchors that the clightning node
doesnt know about.
Instead, we mark some outputs as 'ignored' and exclude these from our
account balance sums when we're comparing to the clightning snapshot.
Our consolidate fees had a crash bug (and was pretty convoluted). This
makes it less convoluted and resolves the crash.
The only kinda meh thing is that we have to look up the most recent
timestamp data for the onchain fee entry separately, because of the way
SQL sums work.
For income events, break out the amount paid in routing fees vs the
total amount of the *invoice* that is paid.
Also printout these fees, when available, on listaccountevents
Add ability to filter results by timestamp.
Note that "start_time" is everything *after* that timestamp; and
"end_time" is everything *up to and including* that timestamp.
Prints out the `listincome` events as a CSV formatted file
Current csv_format options:
- koinly
- cointracker
- harmony (https://github.com/harmony-csv/harmony)
- quickbooks*
*Quickbooks expects values in 'USD', whereas we print values out
in <currency> (will be noted in the Description field). This won't work
how you'd expect -> you might need to do some conversion etc before
uploading it.
All amounts emitted as 'btc' w/ *11* decimals.
This is a rare case where we RBF the output of a penalty until it no
longer has an output value we can reclaim. We ignore the txid for these
events when closing a channel.
We issue events for external deposits (withdrawals) before the tx is
confirmed in a block. To avoid double counting these, we don't count
them as confirmed/included until after they're confirmed. We do this
by keeping the blockheight as zero until the withdraw for the input for
them comes through.
Note that since we don't have any way to note when RBF'd withdraws
aren't eligible for block inclusion anymore, we don't really have a good
heuristic to trim them. Which is fine, they *will* show up in account
events however.
onchain fees are weird at channel close because:
- you may be missing an trimmed htlc (which went to fees)
- the balance from close may have been rounded (msats cant land on
chain)
- the close might have been a past state and you've actually
ended up with more money onchain than you had in the channel. wut
This commit accounts for all of this appropriately, with some tests.
channel_close.debit should equal onchain_fee.credit (for that txid)
plus sum(chain_event.credit [wallet/channel_acct]).
In the penalty case, channel_close.debit becomes channel_close.debit +
penalty_adj.debit, i.e.
channel-close.debit + (penalty_adj.debit) =
onchain_fee.credit
+ sum(chain_event.credit [wallet/channel_acct])
Due to the way that onchain channel closes work, there is often a delay
between when the funding output is spent and the channel is considered
'closed'.
Once *every* downstream utxo of a channel has landed on chain, we
annotate the account with the resolving blockheight.
This gives us some insight into whether or not the chain fees etc of a
channel are going to update further and allows for a natural marker to
prune data (at a later date)
Pass in an account id, get out a utxo chain of the channel open and
close (and any other related htlc txs etc).
Note that this prints all wallet deposits that occurred in any of the
tx's that touched this channel.
This is fine and expected for any tx that's not the open; when
considerig the tx open event, the wallet deposit that's present is
typically the change. If there were other channels opened in the same tx
then the change won't match up exactly...
Also note that we might have ignored/missed fees for the channel
closed's spending txid, so we attempt to update those as well.
Backfilling for missed events is a beast.
We need the total output_value, and we can figure this out if we look at
the remote amount also.
We also need to account for the pushed/leased amount, as for leased
channels this really messes with onchain fee calculations.
We copy basically the events that lightningd emits for leased channels:
an open event with the 'lease fee' (pushed?) amount credited to the side
that made the lease/push; then an in-channel event to effectively push
the pushed/leased amount over to the peer it was paid to.
We run the journal entry info after this, so the journal snapshot will
take the pushed amount into account when figuring out what the further
missed in-channel payments were (if any)
Because we update the onchain_fee table every time a new event comes in,
it's possible (and in fact happens) that we get a wallet
withdraw/deposit event and then the channel open output event.
What we'd expect in this case is that the fees for the tx were credited
to the channel's account, not the wallet. But since we got the two
in/out events first, the fees were accumulated there first.
Our existing logic will add the channel's fees correctly, but we weren't
zeroing out the wallet's balance once it'd been determined that they
were 'ineligble' so to speak, for being included in the fees that round.
Rusty Russell
niftynei