Like the fd, it's only useful when the peer is not in a daemon, so we
free & NULL it when that happens.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. We explicitly assert what state we're coming from, to make transitions
clearer.
2. Every transition has a state, even between owners while waiting for HSM.
3. Explictly step though getting the HSM signature on the funding tx
before starting channeld, rather than doing it in parallel: makes
states clearer.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We currently create a peer struct, then complete handshake to find out
who it is. This means we have a half-formed peer, and worse: if it's
a reconnect we get two peers the same.
Add an explicit 'struct connection' for the handshake phase, and
construct a 'struct peer' once that's done.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Only the side *accepting* the connection gives a `minumum_depth`, but both
sides are supposed to wait that long:
BOLT #2:
### The `funding_locked` message
...
#### Requirements
The sender MUST wait until the funding transaction has reached
`minimum-depth` before sending this message.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is an approximate result (it's only our confirmed balance, not showing
outstanding HTLCs), but it gives an easy way to check HTLCs have been
resolved.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Instead of indicating where to place the fd, you say how many: the
fd array gets passed into the callback.
This is also clearer for the users.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's a bit messy, since some status messages are accompanied by an FD:
in this case, the handler returns STATUS_NEED_FD and we read that then
re-call the handler.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker