feat: Implement self payment #3934
Conversation
|
👋 I see @joostjager was un-assigned. |
Prabhat1308
changed the title
Prabhat1308
changed the title
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated
| /// | ||
| /// # Returns | ||
| /// Returns the payment hash on success, or an APIError on failure. | ||
| pub fn send_self_payment( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, not sure we want to add a special API just for this 1-hop circular route. Can we reuse the existing APIs, i.e. detect that we're the recipient and act accordingly? Then, for #3791, we'll need to add an API that allows longer circular routes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I originally thought of using send_payment_with_route since we know the route we want the payment to take . I should be able to incorporate it in that .
lightning/src/util/scid_utils.rs
Outdated
| // Self payment scid is 0 to avoid confusion with real channels | ||
| /// A special short channel ID (0) used to indicate a self-payment. | ||
| /// When routing a payment to ourselves, the first hop will have this SCID. | ||
| pub const SCID_SELF_PAYMENT: u64 = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, when handling HTLCs we're already leaning on the short_channel_id == 0 special case for receiving. So I guess that's preexisting. Still, I'm not the biggest fan of such magic numbers. Do you think there would be a way to avoid this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A way I thought of is to change Route or RouteParameters to include a is_self_payment flag which can be used to detect if a payment is a self-payment or we could use if path.hops.first().unwrap().pubkey == our_node_pubkey but I don't feel good about the idea of having to pass our_node_pubkey deep in the api calls to send_payment_along_path. either way we would want to have a magic number for dummy scid (not specific for self-payments but general ) and settle on it ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or we could use
if path.hops.first().unwrap().pubkey == our_node_pubkeybut I don't feel good about the idea of having to passour_node_pubkeydeep in the api calls tosend_payment_along_path
Hmm, but in ChannelManager (hence also in send_payment_along_path) we should have our pubkey readily available at self.our_network_pubkey, no?
|
👋 The first review has been submitted! Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer. |
Prabhat1308
force-pushed
the
probot/self-payment
branch
from
955c11c to
7d78e4e
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3934 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.84% 90.80% +1.96%
==========================================
Files 166 167 +1
Lines 119487 143472 +23985
Branches 119487 143472 +23985
==========================================
+ Hits 106157 130285 +24128
+ Misses 11006 10722 -284
- Partials 2324 2465 +141
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Normal lightning workflow does not know how to handle self payment as the route created is to self . This will not be found in short_to_chan_info as there cant be channel created where both the nodes are the same. This handles that scenario by handling the payment before the lookup is hit
![graphite-app[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/158384?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
lightning/src/routing/router.rs
Outdated
| hops: vec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The cltv_expiry_delta field is currently hardcoded to MIN_FINAL_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA, but it should instead use the value from route_params.final_cltv_expiry_delta to maintain consistency with the requested payment parameters. This ensures that self-payments respect the same CLTV constraints as regular payments.
Spotted by Diamond
Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.
Prabhat1308
force-pushed
the
probot/self-payment
branch
from
61ebe05 to
39643a5
Compare
|
I don't think this is ready for 2nd reviewer, or is it? |
| if keysend_preimage.is_some() { | ||
| pending_events.push_back((events::Event::PaymentSent { | ||
| payment_id: Some(payment_id), | ||
| payment_preimage: keysend_preimage.unwrap(), | ||
| payment_hash: *payment_hash, | ||
| amount_msat: Some(htlc_msat), | ||
| fee_paid_msat: Some(0), // No fees for self-payments | ||
| bolt12_invoice: None, | ||
| }, None)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation currently generates PaymentSent events only for spontaneous payments (with keysend_preimage), but not for Bolt11 invoice payments. This creates inconsistent behavior where Bolt11 self-payments will appear as claimable but never as sent.
For consistency in the payment lifecycle, both types of self-payments should generate both events. Consider modifying the code to handle Bolt11 self-payments similarly to spontaneous payments by generating the appropriate PaymentSent event when the payment is claimed.
| if keysend_preimage.is_some() { | |
| pending_events.push_back((events::Event::PaymentSent { | |
| payment_id: Some(payment_id), | |
| payment_preimage: keysend_preimage.unwrap(), | |
| payment_hash: *payment_hash, | |
| amount_msat: Some(htlc_msat), | |
| fee_paid_msat: Some(0), // No fees for self-payments | |
| bolt12_invoice: None, | |
| }, None)); | |
| } | |
| // Generate PaymentSent event for both keysend and Bolt11 self-payments | |
| pending_events.push_back((events::Event::PaymentSent { | |
| payment_id: Some(payment_id), | |
| payment_preimage: keysend_preimage.unwrap_or_else(|| payment_preimage.unwrap()), | |
| payment_hash: *payment_hash, | |
| amount_msat: Some(htlc_msat), | |
| fee_paid_msat: Some(0), // No fees for self-payments | |
| bolt12_invoice: None, | |
| }, None)); |
Spotted by Diamond
Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.
I just opened it from draft to get feedback and bot immediately assigned . |
4 participants
fixes #2462
revives #2573
This PR implements the option for self payment for ldk nodes .
PR is right now marked as draft as this is a very rough implementation and I am looking for suggestions / improvements , some of them
1 . should an option to make BlindedPath for self-routes be made ?
2 . should MPP be allowed ? (Personally I think this is a bad idea , we should use BlindedPath instead if we want privacy otherwise normal way should suffice)
3. Should all self-payments be spontaneous ? an observer might be able to figure out that that we are paying to ourselves if there are a lot of spontaneous payments !
4. My bad code ?