CLN no longer opens Zero Conf Channels to LND #6208
Comments
|
Looks related to 7e5146a. |
5 tasks
|
It looks like the release was cut anyways despite the interoperability regression between LND, if that's something you guys care about @rustyrussell @cdecker? I was going to recommend reverting that commit but this has gone unanswered. I guess we'll have to stay at the december release and ignore all the updates we had to do in order to use the deprecated list peers function in this release. |
|
Sorry to be late here, I do not know why I did not receive the email regarding it. In any case I will try to look inside it :) |
|
Obviously LND didn't expect this combination, which is perfectly valid :( We used to not set scidalias, which was wrong (how else would we support zeroconf?) but that code explicitly allows :( Hard to fix (well, until zero fee anchors is merged), but I'll take a look... |
rustyrussell
added a commit
to rustyrussell/lightning
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Fixes: ElementsProject#6208
rustyrussell
added a commit
to rustyrussell/lightning
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Changelog-Fixed: Fix incompatibility with LND which prevented us opening private channels Fixes: ElementsProject#6208
rustyrussell
added a commit
to rustyrussell/lightning
that referenced
this issue
Jun 5, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Fixes: ElementsProject#6208
|
Is zero fee anchors close to finishing? Perhaps it's fine to wait on that if they'll both be in the next release anyways. |
rustyrussell
added a commit
to rustyrussell/lightning
that referenced
this issue
Jun 6, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Changelog-Fixed: Fix incompatibility with LND which prevented us opening private channels Fixes: ElementsProject#6208
rustyrussell
added a commit
to rustyrussell/lightning
that referenced
this issue
Jun 6, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Changelog-Fixed: Fix incompatibility with LND which prevented us opening private channels Fixes: ElementsProject#6208
rustyrussell
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 9, 2023
option_scid_alias inside a channel_type allows for more private channels: in particular, it tells the peer that it MUST NOT allow routing via the real short channel id, and MUST use the alias. It only makes sense (and is only permitted!) on unannounced channels. Unfortunately, we didn't set this bit in the channel_type in v12.0 when it was introduced, instead relying on the presence of the feature bit with the peer. This was fixed in 23.05, but: 1. Prior to 23.05 we didn't allow it to be set at all, and 2. LND has a limited set of features they allow, and this isn't allowed without option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx. We could simply drop this channel_type until we merge anchors, *but* that has nasty privacy implications (you can probe the real channel id). So, if we don't negotiate anchors (we don't!), we don't set this channel_type bit even if we want it, and *intuit* it, based on: 1. Is this a non-anchor channel_type? 2. Did we both send channel_type? 3. Is this an unannounced channel? 4. Did both peers announce support for scid aliases? In addition, while looking at the previous backwards-compat code, I realized that v23.05 violated the spec and send accept_channel with OPT_SCID_ALIAS if it intuited it, even if it wasn't offered. Stop doing this, but allow our peers to. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Changelog-Fixed: Fix incompatibility with LND which prevented us opening private channels Fixes: #6208
|
Just wanted to come back and say that I've tested v23.05.1 and zero conf channels now work again with LND. Thank you so much @rustyrussell and for pushing it as a patch too. Looking forward to not needed a fork of CLN and for being back up to date. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Issue and Steps to Reproduce
Sometime since commit 3a39c63, CLN no longer opens zero conf channels to LND.
I have a CLN pinned to that commit and I have one that's on the v23.05rc2.
Both can open up channels just fine to LDK and CLN nodes. However, I'm trying to understand what might have changed so I can figure out what I need to do. Odds are there's some issue on one side or another that I need to get to the bottom of. I cross posted this here: lightningnetwork/lnd#7642
CLN 3a39c63 (working)
LND v0.16.1:
CLN v23.05rc2 (not working)
LND:
CLN logs:
The thing that stands out is:
When I look at the LND switch case that handles that, I do not see one that just handles those two channel type features: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/fdc1ae9d57326cc82899e4c76d5069b14a764b96/chanacceptor/rpcacceptor.go#L274-L346
Being just
StaticRemoteKeyRequired&ScidAliasRequired.Question for CLN:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: