BOLT 2: allow multiple shutdown message from the sender side. #976
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
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <[email protected]>
vincenzopalazzo
force-pushed
the
macros/multiple_shutdown
branch
from
2be3f10
to
2b919c9
Compare
|
I don't see a reason to make this explicit. I don't think we bother verifying it but if anything I'd think we'd make it explicit you can't send a redundant one but not bother specifying it for the receiver end. |
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/bolts
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2022
This is a second proposal different from lightning#976 where it is not allowed to send multiple shutdown messages from the receiver viewpoint. The rationale for this is to avoid bad cases like the following one that is permitted by the spec ``` ____________________________________________ | sender -> shutdown(script_one) -> receiver | | sender -> shutdown(script_two) -> receiver | | sender <- shutdown(script_one) <- receiver | -------------------------------------------- ``` Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <[email protected]>
23 tasks
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/bolts
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2022
This is a second proposal different from lightning#976 where it is not allowed to send multiple shutdown messages from the receiver viewpoint. The rationale for this is to avoid bad cases like the following one that is permitted by the spec ``` ____________________________________________ | sender -> shutdown(script_one) -> receiver | | sender -> shutdown(script_two) -> receiver | | sender <- shutdown(script_one) <- receiver | -------------------------------------------- ``` Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <[email protected]>
|
@vincenzopalazzo we should probably close this PR as we're going with #977 instead? |
|
Yes @t-bast, I was planning to jump inside the spec today to align all the details about the close, so we can conclude the conversation from this side |
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/bolts
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2022
This is a second proposal different from lightning#976 where it is not allowed to send multiple shutdown messages from the receiver viewpoint. The rationale for this is to avoid bad cases like the following one that is permitted by the spec ``` ____________________________________________ | sender -> shutdown(script_one) -> receiver | | sender -> shutdown(script_two) -> receiver | | sender <- shutdown(script_one) <- receiver | -------------------------------------------- ``` Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <[email protected]>
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/bolts
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2022
This is a second proposal different from lightning#976 where it is not allowed to send multiple shutdown messages from the receiver viewpoint. The rationale for this is to avoid bad cases like the following one that is permitted by the spec ``` ____________________________________________ | sender -> shutdown(script_one) -> receiver | | sender -> shutdown(script_two) -> receiver | | sender <- shutdown(script_one) <- receiver | -------------------------------------------- ``` Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is something that I'm reasoning about during my lnprototest work, and maybe opening a PR gives me more opportunities to get feedback.
What happens if, during a Close Channel operation, the sender sent multiple shutdowns?
At this moment, the spec doesn't tell anything about this case, but I think this is information to add. In my opinion, we need to allow multiple shutdown message from the sender (maybe after a timeout if we have no answer back), but in this case, there is some problem to resolve:
scriptpubkeyin the message? accept any of thescriptpubkeysent? or accept only the last one? In the last case, we can have more control over what we are doing but we can fall into a loop if the received is slow to answer again.Think that this may introduce a complicated state machine in the spec, which I want to avoid!