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

Remove deprecated serialization format and fields #685

Draft
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

t-bast
Copy link
Member

@t-bast t-bast commented Jul 12, 2024

We do some clean-up of deprecated fields, classes and serialization formats. This is a breaking change for users who have never launched the app since the v1.5.0 release (from july 2023). It is not possible to upgrade directly from a version < 1.5.0, an intermediate update will be required.

NB: builds on top of #692

@t-bast t-bast force-pushed the remove-old-serialization branch 2 times, most recently from d53ef40 to 0f7796a Compare August 8, 2024 08:13
It is usually the wallet that decides that it needs a channel, but we
want the LSP to pay the commit fees to allow the wallet user to empty
its wallet over lightning. We previously used a `please_open_channel`
message that was sent by the wallet to the LSP, but it doesn't work
well with liquidity ads.

We remove that message and instead send `open_channel` from the wallet
but with a custom channel flag that tells the LSP that they should be
paying the commit fees. This only works if the LSP adds funds on their
side of the channel, so we couple that with liquidity ads to request
funds from the LSP.

We also add a `recommended_feerates` message from the LSP which lets
the wallet know the on-chain feerates that the LSP will accept for
on-chain funding operations, since those feerates are set in the
`open_channel` message that is now sent by the wallet.
We previously only used liquidity ads with splicing: we now support it
during the initial channel opening flow as well. This lets us add more
unit tests, including tests for the case where the node receiving the
`open_channel` message is responsible for paying the commitment fees.

We also update liquidity ads to use the latest version of the spec from
lightning/bolts#1153. This introduces more ways
of paying the liquidity fees, to support on-the-fly funding without
existing channel balance (not implemented in this commit).

Note that we need some backwards-compatibility with the previous
liquidity ads types in our state serialization code: when we're in the
middle of signing a splice transaction, we may have a legacy liquidity
lease in our splice status. We ignore it when finalizing the splice: the
only consequence is that we won't store an entry in our DB for that
lease, but the channel will otherwise work correctly.
We replace the previous pay-to-open protocol with a new protocol that
only relies on liquidity ads for paying fees. We simply transmit HTLCs
that cannot be relayed on existing channels with a new message called
`will_add_htlc` that contains all the HTLC data.

The recipient can verify that the HTLC that would match this promise is
valid, and if it wishes to accept that payment, it can trigger a channel
open or a splice to purchase the required inbound liquidity. Once that
transaction completes, the sender will relay HTLCs matching the proposed
`will_add_htlc`, which completes the payment.

If the fees for the inbound liquidity purchase couldn't be paid from the
previous channel balance, they can be taken from the HTLCs relayed after
the funding transaction. When that happens, one side needs to trust that
the other will comply. Each side can independently configure the options
they're comfortable with, depending on whether they trust their peer or
not.
Creating a new channel has an additional cost compared to adding
liquidity to an existing channel: the channel will be closed in the
future, which will require paying on-chain fees. Node operators can
include a `channel-creation-fee-satoshis` in their liquidity ads to
cover some of that future cost.
We clarify some of our event types that previously had an `amount`
field to detail whether this amount includes fees or not.

This impacts:

- SwapInEvents.Accepted
- StoreIncomingPayment.ViaNewChannel
- StoreIncomingPayment.ViaSpliceIn
- Origin.OnChainWallet
- Origin.OffChainPayment

There was an inconsistency in the `ViaSpliceIn` event, where in some
cases we used the received amount, and in others the amount with fees.
We forgot to match the `payment_hash` for this payment type, and also
didn't check that the `funding_fee` was `0 msat`.
We previously forced wallets to purchase additional inbound liquidity
every time an on-chain transaction was created. We now allow wallets
to disable automatic liquidity purchases: the LSP will need to add
enough funds on their side to cover the commitment fees, which the
wallet won't be paying for. But we still make a dummy purchase of 1 sat
to ensure that the liquidity ads flow is used and the wallet refunds
the mining fees paid by the LSP.
Instead of using a hard-coded value from `WalletParams`, we read the
liquidity funding rates from our peer's `init` message.
We add an optional feature that lets on-the-fly funding clients accept
payments that are too small to pay the fees for an on-the-fly funding.
When that happens, the payment amount is added as "fee credit" without
performing an on-chain operation. Once enough fee credit has been
obtained, we can initiate an on-chain operation to create a channel or
a splice by paying part of the fees from our fee credit.

This feature makes more efficient use of on-chain transactions by
trusting that our peer will honor our fee credit in the future. The
fee credit takes precedence over other ways of paying the fees (from
our channel balance or future HTLCs), which guarantees that the fee
credit eventually converges to 0.
Add a parameter to our liquidity policy to limit the amount that can be
allocated to fee credit. We don't want a temporary high feerate to cause
wallet users to allocate too much funds towards their fee credit, which
they may not use later.
If our balance, combined with our fee credit, doesn't allow us to pay
the liquidity fees with the payment type we chose, we immediately abort
the splice.
We previously supported having multiple channels with our peer, because
we didn't yet support splicing. Now that we support splicing, we always
have at most one active channel with our peer. This lets us simplify
greatly the outgoing payment state machine: payments are always made
with a single outgoing HTLC instead of potentially multiple HTLCs (MPP).

We don't need any kind of path-finding: we simply need to check the
balance of our active channel, if any.

We may introduce support for connecting to multiple peers in the future.
When that happens, we will still have a single active channel per peer,
but we may allow splitting outgoing payments across our peers. We will
need to re-work the outgoing payment state machine when this happens,
but it is too early to support this now anyway.

This refactoring makes it easier to create payment onion, by creating
the trampoline onion *and* the outer onion in the same function call.
This will make it simpler to migrate to the version of trampoline
that is currently specified in lightning/bolts#836
where some fields will be included in the payment onion instead of the
trampoline onion.
The v4 serialization format was released in July 2023 with better
support for backwards-compatibility: the v2 and v3 formats used
kotlin's serialization, which prevents us from removing legacy
classes and requires additional code whenever we change something
in the channel state.

Users who haven't migrated their data to the v4 format will not be
able to deserialize their channel data: they will need to use a
previous version of the app to read their old channel data, write
it to the v4 format and then upgrade to the latest version.

We also remove a bunch of fields/options that were deprecated a
while ago:

- legacy channel funding states
- unused legacy features
- legacy private key generation
- legacy node events
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant