-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 912
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
Fix the closing minimum fee. #6547
Merged
rustyrussell
merged 3 commits into
ElementsProject:master
from
rustyrussell:guilt/minfee-fix
Aug 12, 2023
Merged
Fix the closing minimum fee. #6547
rustyrussell
merged 3 commits into
ElementsProject:master
from
rustyrussell:guilt/minfee-fix
Aug 12, 2023
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustyrussell
added
the
protocol
These issues are protocol level issues that should be discussed on the protocol spec repo
label
Aug 11, 2023
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
guilt/minfee-fix
branch
from
August 11, 2023 06:27
a9f6f9e
to
8099c25
Compare
``` $ l1-cli close 445x1x1 # Sending closing fee offer 183sat, with range 0sat-183sat # Received closing fee offer 183sat, with range 0sat-1000000sat { "tx": "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", "txid": "216ed9adf8df623770e219f52b31350de60cd1b236d6f043664d9eb5bc462ad4", "type": "mutual" } rusty@rusty-Framework:~/devel/cvs/lightning (master)$ bt-cli getrawmempool [ ] ``` Logs show: ``` 2023-08-11T02:20:13.947Z DEBUG plugin-bcli: sendrawtx exit 26 (bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/home/rusty/.bitcoin sendrawtransaction 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) error code: -26\nerror message:\nmin relay fee not met, 183 < 192 Indeed, tx weight is 192! ``` Reported-by: @ShahanaFarooqui
Presumably we still want to insist that this have *some* chance to propagate. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
…l close. In spec commit 498f104fd399488c77f449d05cb21c0b604636a2 (August 2021), Bastien Teinturier removed the requirement that the mutual close fee be less than or equal the final commitment tx. We adopted that change in v0.10.2, but we made sure to never offer a fee under the final commitment tx's fee, so we didn't break older nodes. However, the closing tx can actually be larger than the final commitment tx! The final commit tx has a 22-byte P2WKH output and a 34-byte P2WSH output; the closing can have two 34-byte outputs, making it 4*8 = 32 Sipa heavier. Previously this would only happen if both sides asked for P2WSH outputs, but now it happens with P2TR, which we now do. The result is that we create a tx which is below the finally commitment tx fee, and may be below minrelayfee (as it was in regtest). So it's time to remove that backwards-compatibility hack. Changelog-Fixed: Protocol: We may propose mutual close transaction which has a slightly higher fee than the final commitment tx (depending on the outputs, e.g. two taproot outputs). Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Fixes: ElementsProject#6545
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
guilt/minfee-fix
branch
from
August 12, 2023 00:14
8099c25
to
c7d6dd3
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
protocol
These issues are protocol level issues that should be discussed on the protocol spec repo
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Triggered by taproot, our mutual closing tx is slightly larger than our final commitment tx. This could happen in theory before (if both specified P2WSH outputs) but nobody ever did that.
We capped the fee at the final commitment_tx fee, for compatibility reasons which have now passed (the spec was changed to remove this 2 years ago by @t-bast, and we removed our enforcement of it in 0.10.2). Removing that simply fixes this problem: that if fees were really low (such as #6545 shows on regtest) we could create a mutual close which didn't even relay!