We only did this when we were first creating a wallet, or when we
asked for a relative rescan, not in the normal case!
Fixes: #1843
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Normal wallet txs get reconfirmed as blocks come in, but ones which need
closeinfo are more fragile, so we do it manually using txwatch for them.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
connect_control.c, dev_ping.c, gossip_control.c, invoice.c.
This converts about 50% of all calls of `json_get_params` to `param`.
After trying (and failing) to squash and rebase #1682 I just made a new branch
from a patch file and closed#1682.
Signed-off-by: Mark Beckwith <wythe@intrig.com>
- fixes problem with polling interval > 150 * 0.9
- fixes log message 'feerate hit floor' at every feerate change
- smoothed fee now reaches 90% of (exp weighted) fee estimates polled in last
120s, independent of polling interval
- only apply smoothing when effect > 10 percent so it doesn't correct forever
- fix indentation
structeq() is too dangerous: if a structure has padding, it can fail
silently.
The new ccan/structeq instead provides a macro to define foo_eq(),
which does the right thing in case of padding (which none of our
structures currently have anyway).
Upgrade ccan, and use it everywhere. Except run-peer-wire.c, which
is only testing code and can use raw memcmp(): valgrind will tell us
if padding exists.
Interestingly, we still declared short_channel_id_eq, even though
we didn't define it any more!
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
`getinfo` has been providing the blockheight for a good while and doesn't
require the `DEVELOPER=1` flag during compilation, so it should be the preferred
method to retrieve the blockchain height.
Implements an EWMA for the fee estimation. Achieves 90% influence of the newer
fee after 5 minutes, and adjusts to the polling rate that is configured.
Until now, `command_fail()` reported an error code of -1 for all uses.
This PR adds an `int code` parameter to `command_fail()`, requiring the
caller to explicitly include the error code.
This is part of #1464.
The majority of the calls are used during parameter validation and
their error code is now JSONRPC2_INVALID_PARAMS.
The rest of the calls report an error code of LIGHTNINGD, which I defined to
-1 in `jsonrpc_errors.h`. The intention here is that as we improve our error
reporting, all occurenaces of LIGHTNINGD will go away and we can eventually
remove it.
I also converted calls to `command_fail_detailed()` that took a `NULL` `data`
parameter to use the new `command_fail()`.
The only difference from an end user perspecive is that bad input errors that
used to be -1 will now be -32602 (JSONRPC2_INVALID_PARAMS).
Make --override-fee-rates a dev option. We use default-fee-rate in
its place, which (since bitcoind won't give fee estimates in regtest
mode for short chains) gives an effective feerate of 15000/7500/3750.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We never hit the guess_feerate() path, because we turned a 0 ("can't
estimate fee") into 253.
This also revealed that we weren't initializing topo->feerate, and
that we were giving spurious updates even if we were using override-fee-rates.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We're getting spurious closures, even on mainnet. Using --ignore-fee-limits
is dangerous; it's slightly less so to lower the minimum (which is the
usual cause of problems).
So let's halve it, but beware the floor.
This is a workaround, until we get independent feerates in the spec.
Fixes: #613
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Simplification of the offset calculation to use the rescan parameter, and rename
of `wallet_first_blocknum`. We now use either relative rescan from our last
known location, or absolute if a negative rescan was given. It's all handled in
a single location (except the case in which the blockcount is below our
precomputed offset), so this should reduce surprises.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
The only use for these was to compute their txids so we could notify depth
in case of reorgs.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
We are slowly hollowing out the in-memory blockchain representation to make
restarts easier.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This will later allow us to determine the transaction confirmation count, and
recover transactions for rebroadcasts.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
There are two very hard problems in software engineering:
1. Off-by-one errors
In this case we were rolling back further than needed and we were starting the
catchup one block further than expected.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
But only if we're actually going to change the feerate, otherwise we'd
log every time.
Suggested-by: @ZmnSCPxj
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Naively, this would be 250 satoshi per sipa, but it's not since bitcoind's
fee calculation was not rewritten to deal with weight, but instead bolted
on using vbytes.
The resulting calculations made me cry; I dried my tears on the thorns
of BUILD_ASSERT (I know that makes no sense, but bear with me here as I'm
trying not to swear at my bitcoind colleagues right now).
Fixes: #1194
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We would `block_map_add` inside `add_tip`, but we never
`block_map_del` inside `remove_tip`, which is dangerous as
we actually `tal_free` the block inside `remove_tip`.
Our CI did not reliably trap this problem since block
hashes are random and rerunning the `test_blockchaintrack`
often passed spuriously.
Our testing also reveals a bug: we start lightningd and shut it down
before fully processing the blockchain, so we don't set
last_processed_block. Fix that by setting it immediately once we have
a block: worst case it goes backwards a little.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We do a complicated dance because we don't know the current block
height before setting up the topology.
If we're starting at a particular block, we want to go back 100 blocks
before that to cover any reorgs.
If we're not (fresh startup), we still want to go back 100 blocks
because we don't bother handling a reorg which removes all the blocks
we know.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
With fallback depending on chainparams: this means the first upgrade
will be slow, but after that it'll be fast.
Fixes: #990
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Mark Beckwith
Simon Vrouwe
Hiroki Gondo
SimonVrouwe
Christian Decker
ZmnSCPxj
practicalswift