Thanks. I think I have enough though with the two donations I received. Have fun!

Thank you! Do you want me to return it to the change address once I am done with it?

Thank you for whoever sent me some tsats, I can return them to the tx's change address when the test is over. I am not sure if it is quite enough for the channel test I want to do. Another 0.009 tBTC would be safer I think if possible. Thanks!

Amount: 0.009 tBTC
Address: tb1qaulafm7ffztqv6g2wgs003g4c07p2hmjcsdyu6

Hi,

I am looking for about 0.05 tBTC to open a channel with CLN and try figuring out a bug that affects it. My deposit address would be tb1qaulafm7ffztqv6g2wgs003g4c07p2hmjcsdyu6 . Would it be possible to send me some?

Thanks!

Ok it looks like it is a bug with CLN that is being worked on: https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/issues/5417

Edit: If I use disable-mpp and large-channels in my config file, I manage to do the transfer.

So I am still getting errors even with a direct channel:

From lightning-cli:
"code": 210,
   "message": "Ran out of routes to try after 59 attempts: see `paystatus`",
   "attempts": [
      {
         "status": "pending",
         "partid": 1,
         "amount_msat": 5000000000
      },
      {
         "status": "failed",
         "failreason": "failed: WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT (reply from remote)",
         "partid": 2,
         "amount_msat": 3167117220,  
         "parent_partid": 1
      },
...
      {
         "status": "failed",
         "failreason": "No path found",
         "partid": 49,
         "amount_msat": 19365229,
         "parent_partid": 28
      },
      {
         "status": "failed",
         "failreason": "Cannot split payment any further without exceeding the maximum number of HTLCs allowed by our channels",
         "partid": 29,
         "amount_msat": 31155448,
         "parent_partid": 20
      },

From the log file:
INFO    plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 1: Split into 2 sub-payments due to initial size (5000000000msat > 2560000000msat): new partid 2, new partid 3
...
INFO    xxxxx-chan#2: htlc 5 failed from 0th node with code 0x0017 (WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT)
INFO    plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 2: failed: WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT (reply from remote)
INFO    plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 2: Payment deadline expired, not retrying (partial-)payment xxxxx/2
INFO    xxxxx-chan#2: htlc 6 failed from 0th node with code 0x0017 (WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 4: failed: WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT (reply from remote)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 4: Payment deadline expired, not retrying (partial-)payment xxxxx/4
INFO    xxxxx-chan#2: htlc 7 failed from 0th node with code 0x0017 (WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 8: failed: WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT (reply from remote)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 8: Payment deadline expired, not retrying (partial-)payment xxxxx/8
INFO    xxxxx-chan#2: htlc 8 failed from 0th node with code 0x0017 (WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 36: failed: WIRE_MPP_TIMEOUT (reply from remote)
INFO    plugin-pay: id 1 partid 36: Payment deadline expired, not retrying (partial-)payment xxxxx/36

When I look the the channel info, the field maximum_htlc_out_msat is higher than 5000000000msat.

So why is it still looking for routes if it does not need any routing?

Thanks!

No problem, like I mentioned I was able to extract the seed from CLN by hacking their wallet tool a bit. I used it with another tool I have to get the private key for the UXO of the stuck transaction, and I executed the CPFP. The same tool also generates the zpriv, but I would need to do a bit more hacking to obtain the zpub if I wanted to. Having a tool that can generate wallets based on either entropy, mnemonic words, or seed is handy in this kind of situation

Cheers

I might be wrong, but I don't think CLN uses a bitcoin core wallet? bitcoin-cli listwallets returns an empty array for instance. Also CLN does not seem to be aware at all about what is going on in the mempool.

Isn't CPFP what I was actually trying to do? I was trying to spend the UTXO from the low fee transaction such that the average fee rate from both transactions be above 50 sats/vByte. The issue is that I have to extract the private key from the CLN's wallet first?

For VIABTC I had tried already, but it looks like they raised their threshold from 10 sats/vByte to a level above 20...

Thanks!

Ok so I looked at the hsmtool code and I managed to hack it to extract the seed. They use the following piece of code that does a non-standard transformation to the seed as obtained from the mnemonic words as far as I understand:

hkdf_sha256(bip32_seed, sizeof(bip32_seed),
                            &salt, sizeof(salt),
                            &hsm_secret, sizeof(hsm_secret),
                            "bip32 seed", strlen("bip32 seed"));

So this stores the actual seed used to generate the master keys into bip32_seed. For standard BIP39 wallets, I think hsm_secret would have constituted the actual BIP32 seed.

Yes sorry, I used the wrong terminology. What I wanted to confirm is that the peer of a direct channel will allow for my 5M sats transaction to go through this channel, correct? Since there is no routing involved, there is no reason for blocking the transaction?

Thanks!

Hi,

How can I open a CLN's wallet using another wallet software? The mnemonic phrase is not sufficient, it seems to be using a non-standard derivation path or something?

There is an issue with the support for feerate specification when closing a channel and CLN ended up closing a channel with a fee of 20 sats/vByte. I would like to send the UTXO from the stuck transaction to another UTXO using a higher rate than necessary so the average rate for both transactions is sufficient to include my transaction, but lightning-cli is unable to see the stuck transaction.

Thanks!

Edit:
The "lightning-hsmtool dumponchaindescriptors" command returns something like this:
wpkh(xpub.../0/0/*)#xxxxxxxx
sh(wpkh(xpub.../0/0/*))#xxxxxxxx

My CLN wallet has native segwit addresses, so I tried using the first line in Sparrow I entered it has a descriptor. I am not sure what I should use for the Master fingerprint and the Derivation fields? I tried zeroing out the Master fingerprint and use the default m/84'/0'/0' value for the derivation path. I also tried m, m/0/0, m/84;, m/84'/0', m/84'/0'/0 . I am not sure how it would help me figure out the xpriv/zpriv from the mnemonic phrase though. I am not familiar with descriptors.

What am I missing?

Did you mean in any other case? Only a single route would be required if I had a direct channel with the node offering the swap service, correct?

No I don't share a channel directly with the node I want to swap coins with. I was doing that for privacy reason so that node would not know both my node info and UTXO info. Should I do otherwise? Would that go through if I was connected directly?

Thanks!

I am trying to do an atomic swap to get inbound liquidity for my channel, so I have to pay for an onchain fee and I want to minimize my costs on a relative basis. Why do you say "You're about to pay 0.01 BTC in fees"? It is a 0.05 BTC transaction and I set the routing fee limit to 0.1% (which should be more than sufficient based on the channel fees I see and the number of hops required), so routing fees are capped to 0.00005 BTC.

Thanks!

Hi,

I am trying to push a 5M sats payment through Lightning and I am having a hard time. Here are the relevant information I get from CLN:

From the lightning-cli output:
"code": 210,
   "message": "Ran out of routes to try after 58 attempts: see `paystatus`",

...
"status": "failed",
         "failreason": "failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)",

From the debug log:
Split into 3 sub-payments due to initial size (5000000000msat > 2560000000msat): new partid 2, new partid 3, new partid 4
...
plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 11: Fee exceeds our fee budget: 930240msat > 275741msat, discarding route
...
plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 41: Cannot split payment any further without exceeding the maximum number of HTLCs allowed by our channels
...
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 8 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 7 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
plugin-pay: cmd 34 partid 4: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
plugin-pay: id 2 partid 3: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 9 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 10 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 11 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
xxxxx-chan#1: htlc 12 failed from 1th node with code 0x1007 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE)
2023-05-30T14:08:18.903Z INFO    plugin-pay: id 2 partid 5: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
2023-05-30T14:08:18.921Z INFO    plugin-pay: id 2 partid 12: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
2023-05-30T14:08:18.954Z INFO    plugin-pay: id 2 partid 19: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
2023-05-30T14:08:18.980Z INFO    plugin-pay: id 2 partid 31: failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)

From previous experiences it seems that the 2560000000msat threshold is important, but this is difficult to know for sure? The node I am connecting to is well connected and has very large channels.

Thanks!

Hi,

so if I want to minimize fees on a relative basis with the Boltz Exchange, a swap of 0.1 would be ideal vs multiple smaller swaps due to the high miner fees they charge. How difficult is it to achieve (with CLN)? Are there particular settings that could help? For transfer capacity in practice, is it better to have multiple smaller channels if their total size is the same vs a single channel? When I did some tests recently, invoices above 0.0256 seemed to be problematic.

Thanks!

Now if I try a BFX node, I get the error: "Channel Rejected" ?

I am using their TOR address. I will try rebooting my node since it has been up for 6 months or so and see if it makes a difference. Thanks!

Edit: So I tried connecting to their IPv4 address after rebooting (through Tor still though since my node's firewall blocks all IPV4 services in and out), and I got the same error.

Ok thank you I can wait more. I have not opened and closed multiple channels with them though, it is a single channel I have been trying to open with them for a new node. If it is a rate limit due to a number of nodes too large trying to open channels with them, then I can understand.