Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

closing incorrectly using fee_range #4715

Closed
t-bast opened this issue Aug 11, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

closing incorrectly using fee_range #4715

t-bast opened this issue Aug 11, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link

t-bast commented Aug 11, 2021

Our node received some warnings that seems to indicate a c-lightning node that wants to use lightning/bolts#847 improperly: Feerange 177sat-182sat below minimum acceptable 183sat

I observe the following flow of messages:

  c-lightning                      eclair
       |                              |
       |          shutdown            |
       |----------------------------->|
       |          shutdown            |
       |<-----------------------------|
       |   closing_signed (183 sat)   |
       |----------------------------->|
       |   closing_signed (176 sat)   |
       |<-----------------------------|
       |           warning            |
       |----------------------------->|

And then the c-lightning node disconnects.
The closing_signed messages do not contain a tlv stream with a fee_range, so it should use the legacy closing negotiation flow instead of disconnecting and refusing to make progress.

I don't know what version of c-lightning our peer is using, I can share their node_id if that's useful.

@cdecker
Copy link
Member

cdecker commented Sep 2, 2021

Could this be related to this comment by @rustyrussell in #4599:

On the way I found that our fee estimation for closing txs was not actually using the weight of the closing tx, but the final commitment tx. This is v. different for anchor_outputs!

@rustyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

I saw this too, closing with a c-lightning node. It's complaining because it considers 183 the minimum valid fee. It probably started at (say) 183-1000, then it sent 183, and when it gets 176 the possible range is now 175 - 182, which is below its minimum.

I think this is OK...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants