When doing the random walk through the channel, we now add the fees
(both the base and the proportional one) for that channel in addition to
the cltv delta.
Changelog-Added: Payment amount fuzzing is restored, but through shadow routing.
mrkd started enforcing the `name -- short description` style of top-level
headings somewhere, and was thus failing to build the man-pages. I swapped
the title and with the existing short description to make it work
again. `mrkd` will automatically infer the section from the filename so no
need to put it in the title as well.
In addition I removed the "last updated" lines at the bottom since they are
out of date at best, and misleading at the worst. If we want to keep them, I'd
suggest generating them from the commit that last touched them.
Fixes: #2659
Value randomization is not implemented since `pay` was made into a plugin.
Nobody has been asking for it, so do not implement it and just remove
from documentation.
Shadow routes is implemented, and not describe, so describe it now.
New name is less confusing, and most people should be transitioning to
listpays rather than this anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is to future-proof against multi-part-payments: the low-level commands
will start returning multiple results once we have that, so prepare
transition plan now.
Closes: #2372
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is the same deprecation, but one level up. For the moment, we
still support invoices with a `h` field (where description will be
necessary) but that will be removed once this option is removed.
Note that I just changed pylightning without backwards compatibility,
since the field was unlikely to be used, but we could do something
more complex here?
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I tried to fundchannel 0.01btc, and of course it wanted 8 decimals exactly.
If I can't get this right, it's probably a bad idea.
I still don't allow whole number of btc though, since that's probably a mistake
and you're not supposed to put that much in c-lightning yet :)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Up until now, riskfactor was useless due to implementation bugs, and
also the default setting is wrong (too low to have an effect on
reasonable payment scenarios).
Let's simplify the definition (by assuming that P(failure) of a node
is 1), to make it a simple percentage. I examined the current network
fees to see what would work, and under this definition, a default of
10 seems reasonable (equivalent to 1000 under the old definition).
It is *this* change which finally fixes our test case! The riskfactor
is now 40msat (1500000 * 14 * 10 / 5259600 = 39.9), comparable with
worst-case fuzz is 50msat (1001 * 0.05 = 50).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Several users have noticed that they cannot pay satoshis.place or similar places
that have tiny payment amounts if they are not directly connected. This is due
to the forwarding fee dominating the transferred amount.
This commit adds a new option, exempting tiny fees (up to 5 satoshis by default)
from having to pass the maxfeepercent flag. While we could have told users to
tweak maxfeepercent I think it is usefull to have a default exemption.
[Squashed --RR]
These error codes will cause `pay` to retry, so `pay` will never
actually report those error codes.
Those error codes will only get reported at the `sendpay` level.
darosior
Christian Decker
ZmnSCPxj
Rusty Russell
Wladimir J. van der Laan
Felix
practicalswift