Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming channel on blinded path #9127

MPins · 2024-09-21T04:16:26Z

Change Description

Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node setting a list of penultimates nodes

Steps to Test

lncli addinvoice --blind --blinded_path_penultimate_node "node_id" amount
lncli addinvoice --blind --blinded_path_penultimate_node "node_id1" --blinded_path_penultimate_node "node_id2" amount

Pull Request Checklist

Testing

Your PR passes all CI checks.
Tests covering the positive and negative (error paths) are included.
Bug fixes contain tests triggering the bug to prevent regressions.

Code Style and Documentation

The change obeys the Code Documentation and Commenting guidelines, and lines wrap at 80.
Commits follow the Ideal Git Commit Structure.
Any new logging statements use an appropriate subsystem and logging level.
Any new lncli commands have appropriate tags in the comments for the rpc in the proto file.
There is a change description in the release notes, or [skip ci] in the commit message for small changes.

📝 Please see our Contribution Guidelines for further guidance.

MPins · 2024-09-21T04:22:06Z

Hello @ellemouton if you think I'm on the right way I can add the option to choose a channel also.

MPins · 2024-09-22T13:42:18Z

Maybe change the name to "incoming_node" is a better idea! But I'll wait for others opinion also.

ellemouton · 2024-09-23T01:16:34Z

thanks @MPins - in tokyo at the moment for the LN summit so will take a look at this a bit later this week or next week

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-03T20:14:21Z

I think it makes sense to just specify the incoming channel, I don't see a lot of use cases for the whole blinded route, but maybe we already prepare the code so that it will be easy to just upgrade to the whole blinded path if it has benefits.

ziggie1984

Thank you for your first contribution 🎉

Please squash all commits related to the lnrpc change into one.

Moreover while reviewing this PR I found out that we have a bug in your probabiliy calculation. We basically should have the prob. of full certainty for the last hop however we need to change the logic in our probability estimator which still seems to not account for the blinded usecase see here (only when from == Self do we set the full local probability, that needs to now be inverted for the last hop as well):

lnd/routing/missioncontrol.go

Lines 509 to 526 in 2d33317

    
           func (m *MissionControl) GetProbability(fromNode, toNode route.Vertex, 
        
           	amt lnwire.MilliSatoshi, capacity btcutil.Amount) float64 { 
        
           	m.mu.Lock() 
        
           	defer m.mu.Unlock() 
        
           	now := m.cfg.clock.Now() 
        
           	results, _ := m.state.getLastPairResult(fromNode) 
        
           	// Use a distinct probability estimation function for local channels. 
        
           	if fromNode == m.cfg.selfNode { 
        
           		return m.estimator.LocalPairProbability(now, results, toNode) 
        
           	} 
        
           	return m.estimator.PairProbability( 
        
           		now, results, toNode, amt, capacity, 
        
           	) 
        
           }

lnrpc/lightning.proto

routing/pathfind.go

cmd/commands/cmd_invoice.go

MPins · 2024-10-04T02:50:19Z

I think it makes sense to just specify the incoming channel, I don't see a lot of use cases for the whole blinded route, but maybe we already prepare the code so that it will be easy to just upgrade to the whole blinded path if it has benefits.

In most cases it would be sufficient to specify the node, the channel must be specified in cases where there is more than one channel with the same node. Of course, specifying the channel covers both use cases. I'm not sure if we should keep both options for the user, perhaps it would be more intuitive to specify the income node for most users.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-04T09:57:12Z

I prefer the channel, because than you have more control rather than the pubkey. But at the end not sure if its really worth it to treat different channels to the same peer differently because we have non-strict forwarding. So probably both options are ok ...

MPins · 2024-10-07T12:58:32Z

Thank you for your first contribution 🎉

Please squash all commits related to the lnrpc change into one.

Moreover while reviewing this PR I found out that we have a bug in your probabiliy calculation. We basically should have the prob. of full certainty for the last hop however we need to change the logic in our probability estimator which still seems to not account for the blinded usecase see here (only when from == Self do we set the full local probability, that needs to now be inverted for the last hop as well):

lnd/routing/missioncontrol.go

Lines 509 to 526 in 2d33317

func (m *MissionControl) GetProbability(fromNode, toNode route.Vertex,

amt lnwire.MilliSatoshi, capacity btcutil.Amount) float64 {

m.mu.Lock()

defer m.mu.Unlock()

now := m.cfg.clock.Now()

results, _ := m.state.getLastPairResult(fromNode)

// Use a distinct probability estimation function for local channels.

if fromNode == m.cfg.selfNode {

return m.estimator.LocalPairProbability(now, results, toNode)

}

return m.estimator.PairProbability(

now, results, toNode, amt, capacity,

)

}

Thank you for your carefully revision. I'll be working on it some time on the following days. About the probability, I invest some time trying to understanding it, but I didn't get the bug on it! From my understanding, probability is about sending the payment, right? How the payment node would even know that we are choosing the income channel/node? I'm probably missing something, I would appreciate if you give me directions to expand my understanding.

MPins · 2024-10-07T13:37:56Z

I prefer the channel, because than you have more control rather than the pubkey. But at the end not sure if its really worth it to treat different channels to the same peer differently because we have non-strict forwarding. So probably both options are ok ...

I think we can move forward with both options, but in my opinion they should be exclusive. I mean, if the channel is chosen, the node cannot be chosen. (just to avoid redundant info)

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-08T06:29:07Z

So my initial idea was, that we can know the probability of the last channel in a blinded path with very high accuracy because its our own channel and we know the liquidity distribution when creating the blinded path. However looking into the codebase I think we should keep it as is, we do allow MPP payments for blinded paths so the amount can be splitted among the incoming channels in general. Moreover when we specify the incoming channel to receive on (via this PR) we already made the decision that this is the right channel to receive on the full amount, so maybe we can keep the probability estimation of the last hop/channel as is. Given the fact that we include all routes with a minimum route prob. of 1% we are good as is I think.

MPins · 2024-10-08T09:26:11Z

So my initial idea was, that we can know the probability of the last channel in a blinded path with very high accuracy because its our own channel and we know the liquidity distribution when creating the blinded path. However looking into the codebase I think we should keep it as is, we do allow MPP payments for blinded paths so the amount can be splitted among the incoming channels in general. Moreover when we specify the incoming channel to receive on (via this PR) we already made the decision that this is the right channel to receive on the full amount, so maybe we can keep the probability estimation of the last hop/channel as is. Given the fact that we include all routes with a minimum route prob. of 1% we are good as is I think.

Got it ... besides that, as it is blinded I can't think a way of considering that it is our own node without breaking the main reason for using a blinded path, that is not revealing our own node on a invoice.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-08T09:54:21Z

Got it ... besides that, as it is blinded I can't think a way of considering that it is our own node without breaking the main reason for using a blinded path, that is not revealing our own node on a invoice.

Hmm not sure what you mean, but I was just referring to the creator of the blinded path taking the incoming channel distribution directly into account without really relying on the MC data. The path would still be blinded for the sender so the sender would just have a sorted list of blinded paths in the bolt11 invoice.

MPins · 2024-10-08T10:00:29Z

Got it ... besides that, as it is blinded I can't think a way of considering that it is our own node without breaking the main reason for using a blinded path, that is not revealing our own node on a invoice.

Hmm not sure what you mean, but I was just referring to the creator of the blinded path taking the incoming channel distribution directly into account without really relying on the MC data. The path would still be blinded for the sender so the sender would just have a sorted list of blinded paths in the bolt11 invoice.

Never mind ... I was thinking that the GetProbability func would be called when the payment is being processed by the sender.

MPins · 2024-10-08T12:10:52Z

So my initial idea was, that we can know the probability of the last channel in a blinded path with very high accuracy because its our own channel and we know the liquidity distribution when creating the blinded path. However looking into the codebase I think we should keep it as is, we do allow MPP payments for blinded paths so the amount can be splitted among the incoming channels in general. Moreover when we specify the incoming channel to receive on (via this PR) we already made the decision that this is the right channel to receive on the full amount, so maybe we can keep the probability estimation of the last hop/channel as is. Given the fact that we include all routes with a minimum route prob. of 1% we are good as is I think.

I just saw that it is called by FindBlindedPaths ... Thank you, I have a better understanding of the whole process now.

I think you right ... maybe it should be changed ... not sure if it should be included in this PR or maybe on a specific one for that.

go.mod

saubyk · 2024-10-13T17:25:55Z

Have a basic question here.
The problem statement in the linked issue is regarding specifying an incoming channel...

to have better control over payment success probability
to better control the liquidity distribution available on the node

So why are we then giving the user the control of selecting a node in the cli, instead of directly specifying a channel?
I believe the user should only specify the channel not the node (which I find confusing)

MPins · 2024-10-13T19:25:37Z

Have a basic question here. The problem statement in the linked issue is regarding specifying an incoming channel...

to have better control over payment success probability

to better control the liquidity distribution available on the node

So why are we then giving the user the control of selecting a node in the cli, instead of directly specifying a channel? I believe the user should only specify the channel not the node (which I find confusing)

The idea to have the option to specify the node instead of the channel is because in the most cases it would be enough and from the node runner perspective it would be more intuitive specifying just the income node.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-13T20:26:05Z

So why are we then giving the user the control of selecting a node in the cli, instead of directly specifying a channel?
I believe the user should only specify the channel not the node (which I find confusing)

Good question, I also tend to only support the incoming channel id why:

When creating the blinded path we do not create a Unified Edge meaning that we do NOT take all the different policies for all the channels with the same peer into account. Moreover we cannot be sure that all policies are the same, other implementations iirc can have different policies for different channels, therefore I recommend only using the channel ID here.
Although the lightning network supports non-strict forwarding which means the forwarder can basically select another channel if he wants to, but as mentioned before, we are not unifying the edges to create the worst case policy to the last node. So I think we should stick to the incoming channel id here and should not allow the node id.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-13T20:47:09Z

Imagine your peer has 2 channels with you and different policies, now when creating the blinded path and using the nodeid, you cannot control the particular channel and the sender will probably use the route with the better constraints. We already have something similar when sending a payment where we can select the outgoing channel. We should prob. stick to this form.

MPins · 2024-10-13T21:14:34Z

I think that

Imagine your peer has 2 channels with you and different policies, now when creating the blinded path and using the nodeid, you cannot control the particular channel and the sender will probably use the route with the better constraints. We already have something similar when sending a payment where we can select the outgoing channel. We should prob. stick to this form.

When sending payment you can also choose the last hop (penultimate node in the path) to route through for the payment, but it is other use case. So I think you both are right, I'm going to take the node option out.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-13T21:20:27Z

Good observation that we also allow the last hop in the payment flow, but LND does unify the edges in the sending flow and selects the most expensive policy that's why it makes sense to have this last hop setting.

MPins · 2024-10-13T21:34:06Z

Good observation that we also allow the last hop in the payment flow, but LND does unify the edges in the sending flow and selects the most expensive policy that's why it makes sense to have this last hop setting.

Perfect ... I'm going to take the node option out. Thank you @saubyk for starting this exchange of ideas.

saubyk · 2024-10-13T21:37:54Z

Good observation that we also allow the last hop in the payment flow, but LND does unify the edges in the sending flow and selects the most expensive policy that's why it makes sense to have this last hop setting.

Perfect ... I'm going to take the node option out. Thank you @saubyk for starting this exchange of ideas.

Thanks. Not to add the confusion, but I do understand the logic of selecting the node from a UX standpoint and especially when you imagine a user doing it in a UI. Selecting a pub key (with an alias) is much easier than selecting a channel ID. But I think that problem can be addressed at the application level, where the UI can establish that node-channel linkage and present a user friendly way for the user to make a selection.

ellemouton · 2024-10-16T09:28:21Z

I prefer the channel, because than you have more control rather than the pubkey.

The problem is that you dont actually every have this control due to non-strict forwarding. At the end of the day, the peer may choose any channel to fwd on as long as the peer on the other end is the same peer.

Regarding the impl here and if we only want to specify final hop or list of hops, I think things should be made general enough for both:

so if user specifies 1 peer, then LND takes that as a fixed final hop and uses its current logic to build on that given the other config values
use can specify a list of hops and LND will just do the same thing as above.

MPins · 2024-10-16T10:37:31Z

use can specify a list of hops and LND will just do the same thing as above.

The way it is done here the user can specify the last hop many times (peers or channels, not both). If I understand you correctly it should be kept this way. Right?

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-16T11:04:41Z

@ellemouton what's your take on this, we cannot really know whether peers have a universal policy to us?

Imagine your peer has 2 channels with you and different policies, now when creating the blinded path and using the nodeid, you cannot control the particular channel and the sender will probably use the route with the better constraints. We already have something similar when sending a payment where we can select the outgoing channel. We should prob. stick to this form.

ellemouton · 2024-10-16T12:55:52Z

@ziggie1984 - yes that makes sense but my point is that nothing stops the peer from in any case just choosing the channel they want to choose. If you peer has channel X and Y with you, and you tell them to use channel X, nothing stops them from using channel Y

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-16T13:14:45Z

yes that makes sense but my point is that nothing stops the peer from in any case just choosing the channel they want to choose. If you peer has channel X and Y with you, and you tell them to use channel X, nothing stops them from using channel Y

Correct that's for the perspective of the forwarding node, but let's look at it from the receiving node:

You have channel X and Y, both have different Policies, now you create your invoice specifying the last hop via the nodeid, you get 2 blinded paths most likely (or more). The sender will probably select the path with the best constraints, hence the receiver lost a bit of control while specifying the invoice. If he could have specified the channelid he would not put both paths into the invoice.

I agree with you statement when policies are equal the sender can choose both channel X or channel Y and specifying the nodeid here makes sense. However when the policies are different it makes sense for the receiver to have more control specifying the channelid not the nodeid. Thats why I proposed only going with the chanid, which is basically valid for both options, rather than going with only nodeid, or both (which increases complexity).

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-16T13:17:45Z

Do you favour the approach of providing a whole path not just the last channel ? Could not think of a use case where we would like to specify the whole path ?

MPins · 2024-10-16T14:15:30Z

use can specify a list of hops and LND will just do the same thing as above.

Do you mean a list of final hops or all the blinded path? As @ziggie1984 said I can't imagine also a use case for that. 🤔

ellemouton · 2024-10-18T07:39:42Z

@ziggie1984 - ok gotcha gotcha - thanks for the explanation 🙏 cool yeah then chan-id only makes sense!

ellemouton · 2024-10-18T07:40:45Z

Do you favour the approach of providing a whole path not just the last channel ? Could not think of a use case where we would like to specify the whole path ?

I think things should just be made general enough to specify as many chained channels as you'd like. This can be useful in future where you want to force a payment to go via a specific hop for example. I just think we should build it in a general enough way to cater for this

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-18T08:12:20Z

I think things should just be made general enough to specify as many chained channels as you'd like. This can be useful in future where you want to force a payment to go via a specific hop for example. I just think we should build it in a general enough way to cater for this

good idea let's do that!

MPins · 2024-10-18T11:15:07Z

@ziggie1984 and @ellemouton Great ... Let's do it ... What do you think it is the more appropriate way of getting the chained channels? I was thinking of comma separated channel ids!

There is something like that on buildroute when you specify the hops with comma separated hex pubkeys.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-19T07:01:25Z

There is something like that on buildroute when you specify the hops with comma separated hex pubkeys.

maybe also support both chanid formats: the integer but also the blockheightXTxNumberXOutput for example:

861878x1175x1 or 947644882801328129

MPins · 2024-10-21T10:49:59Z

There is something like that on buildroute when you specify the hops with comma separated hex pubkeys.

maybe also support both chanid formats: the integer but also the blockheightXTxNumberXOutput for example:

861878x1175x1 or 947644882801328129

Maybe it is more appropriated to leave this format 861878x1175x1 to application level.

It was made general enough to specify chained channels hops.

ziggie1984

Looks already good 👍, had some questions.

lnrpc/lightning.proto

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T17:39:59Z

cmd/commands/cmd_invoice.go

@@ -116,6 +117,11 @@ var AddInvoiceCommand = cli.Command{
 				"use on a blinded path. The flag may be " +
 				"specified multiple times.",
 		},
+		cli.StringSliceFlag{
+			Name: "blinded_path_income_channel",


blinded_path_income_channel => blinded_path_incoming_channel_list

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T17:42:45Z

cmd/commands/cmd_invoice.go

+			Usage: "The chained channels ids to be used in a " +
+				"blinded path as the income hops.",


Suggested change

Usage: "The chained channels ids to be used in a " +

"blinded path as the income hops.",

Chained channels (specified via channel id) starting from the receiver node which shall be used for the blinded path.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T18:33:52Z

routing/pathfind.go

+
+	// channelIncomeSet holds a chained channels that we
+	// should use as income hops during blinded path selection.
+	channelIncomeSet []uint64


channelIncomeSet => incomingChainedChannels, because its not a set

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T18:49:57Z

routing/pathfind.go

@@ -1300,6 +1304,16 @@ func processNodeForBlindedPath(g Graph, node route.Vertex,
 	// node that can be used for blinded paths
 	err = g.ForEachNodeChannel(node,
 		func(channel *channeldb.DirectedChannel) error {
+			// If this channel was included  into the chained
+			// channel route.
+			chanInSet := restrictions.channelIncomeSet


It seems to me that this logic will actually produce a path with 2 chained channels if the third one is not found or is not a valid one (not existent), I wonder if we should allow this, I think as soon as the Incoming Channels are specified we should just construct this explicit route.

Actually it will produce any path and it will fail. I've just tested it.

you mean no route is created if you specify more channels and the last one is not found ?

can you detail your testcase, minNumberHops etc ...

I mean no route is created. This is the test I did:

lncli addinvoice --blind --min_real_blinded_hops 3 --num_blinded_hops 3 --blinded_path_income_channel 264982302359552,200111116320768,189116000043009 50000

The first two chained channels exist but the third one does not. No route is created.

ahh makes sense because of -min_real_blinded_hops 3 but should we always force the user to also select the right -min_real_blinded_hops value ? or should the selection of the incoming channel imply the former, would prefer the latter

Thanks @saubyk ... we are following the @ellemouton idea of making it general and accept chained channels for future purposes

Now we are facing the scenario where the number of chained channels is bigger than --num_blinded_hops . The way it is done, it returns no route. Maybe we can stop here!

In regards of your change, you basically put the check to early, thats why routes where not created because the channel count was not increase this has to be done after:

// Keep track of how many incoming channels this node // has. We only use a node as an introduction node if it // has channels other than the one that lead us to it. chanCount++

otherwise the first node will never have enough channels as an intro node.

Given this fact you will get a route if you do this (after moving the check before your statement):

lncli addinvoice --blind --min_real_blinded_hops 1 --num_blinded_hops 1 --blinded_path_income_channel 694891348819968,694891348819967 500 { "r_hash": "64fb793c8b77e56fb9f805c24b4d16cfad2df0b5bf61553cbbd6f4c414a41910", "payment_request": "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", "add_index": "6", "payment_addr": "9a8fe879211540cb422cc39b45776c507680c08a0d35baa45f11e97715d5ecce" }

So I propose just going first with 1 incoming channel, because for the UX we definitely need some improvement to support chained routes

So I agree with @saubyk here and fist go with the incoming channel and add complexity later if we need it.

Sorry for the back and forth but I did not think of these kind of UX challenges when adding the whole route.

No problem at all ... I'm learning a lot during the process 👍 Appreciate your careful review of the code.

So, I'll be changing the code and the rpc parameter name to reflect just one income channel.

hmmm I dont agree - let me chat to ziggie offline a bit

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T18:53:46Z

rpcserver.go

@@ -6048,6 +6049,12 @@ func (r *rpcServer) AddInvoice(ctx context.Context,

 			blindingRestrictions.NodeOmissionSet.Add(vertex)
 		}
+
+		blindingRestrictions.ChannelIncomeSet = append(


I wonder if it makes sense to check here if the selected channels exist in our graph here.

I have mixed feelings with this kind of verification 😄 ... it will produce no route ... and will not spend a lot of resources to do that.

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-22T18:56:51Z

Maybe it is more appropriated to leave this format 861878x1175x1 to application level.

Maybe we can add it to the lncli level, but no hard feeling if we only keep the int representation

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-24T16:05:01Z

I had a discussion with Elle today about the way forward, and we both agreed to proceed with the chained channel feature approach. Additionally, there is no need to rush this feature in an incomplete form. Below is a list of what this PR should include before we can consider it for merging:

IF we select the incoming_channel_list we should only allow this particular channel list and potentially more channels but not less. So if we select 2 channels but only a path with the first channel is found => no path should be reported. IF the list has 2 channels but also a path with more than 2 channels is available we should return it.
When selecting the incoming_channel_list parameters like for example min_real_blinded_hops should be implictitly set, however given point 1, we should also allow this setting to be greater than the incoming_channel_list
Detailed logs should be written if a channel cannot be used if its part of the Incoming_channel_list.
A route defined via the chained channels might have a very low probability, still undecided if we should nevertheless return if even though it falls below our probability threshold, probably not, but we should create a detailed log warning so the user know exactly why we are not using this route.
Changes to the processNodeForBlindedPath should be unit-tested
We should have an itest which has one incoming channel (for complexity reasons we stick to one here), and we proceed creating the blinded path.

Feel free to ask any questions here or on slack, happy to help you out.

cc @ellemouton

saubyk · 2024-10-24T16:15:10Z

we both agreed to proceed with the chained channel feature

It'll be good to understand the justification or the use case for specifying a chain of channels, instead of just one direct channel. What specific problem is getting addressed with the chain?

ziggie1984 · 2024-10-24T16:22:22Z

It'll be good to understand the justification or the use case for specifying a chain of channels, instead of just one direct channel. What specific problem is getting addressed with the chain?

For example you want to make sure a payment passes a particular channel along the route so that you proofed this payment happened, when you are interacting with a service provider

MPins changed the title ~~Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node~~ Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node on blinded path Sep 21, 2024

saubyk assigned MPins Oct 3, 2024

ziggie1984 requested changes Oct 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

lnrpc/lightning.proto Show resolved Hide resolved

routing/pathfind.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

routing/pathfind.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

cmd/commands/cmd_invoice.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

cmd/commands/cmd_invoice.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch from 65a9c7f to adc5c80 Compare October 12, 2024 00:49

MPins commented Oct 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

go.mod Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MPins changed the title ~~Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node on blinded path~~ Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node or channel on blinded path Oct 13, 2024

MPins changed the title ~~Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming node or channel on blinded path~~ Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming channel on blinded path Oct 18, 2024

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch from 14475d8 to a312c4e Compare October 21, 2024 10:44

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch 2 times, most recently from 14a0216 to b07acbe Compare October 21, 2024 11:23

lnrpc: add the options to set the income channel on a blinded path

8c46904

It was made general enough to specify chained channels hops.

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch from b07acbe to 4607723 Compare October 21, 2024 11:35

commands: add option to set the income channel on blinded path

2f96a84

It was made general enough to specify chained channels hops.

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch from 4607723 to 41e336d Compare October 21, 2024 12:47

MPins added 2 commits October 21, 2024 10:14

routing: add the option to set the income channel on blinded path

2d9891a

It was made general enough to specify chained channels hops.

lnd: add the option to set the income channel on blinded path

99d5f25

It was made general enough to specify chained channels hops.

MPins force-pushed the issue-8993 branch from 41e336d to 99d5f25 Compare October 21, 2024 13:15

MPins requested a review from ziggie1984 October 21, 2024 15:29

ziggie1984 reviewed Oct 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

	func (m *MissionControl) GetProbability(fromNode, toNode route.Vertex,
	amt lnwire.MilliSatoshi, capacity btcutil.Amount) float64 {

	m.mu.Lock()
	defer m.mu.Unlock()

	now := m.cfg.clock.Now()
	results, _ := m.state.getLastPairResult(fromNode)

	// Use a distinct probability estimation function for local channels.
	if fromNode == m.cfg.selfNode {
	return m.estimator.LocalPairProbability(now, results, toNode)
	}

	return m.estimator.PairProbability(
	now, results, toNode, amt, capacity,
	)
	}

		Usage: "The chained channels ids to be used in a " +
		"blinded path as the income hops.",

	Usage: "The chained channels ids to be used in a " +
	"blinded path as the income hops.",
	Chained channels (specified via channel id) starting from the receiver node which shall be used for the blinded path.

Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming channel on blinded path #9127

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add the option on path creator to specify the incoming channel on blinded path #9127

Conversation

MPins commented Sep 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Change Description

Steps to Test

Pull Request Checklist

Testing

Code Style and Documentation

MPins commented Sep 21, 2024

MPins commented Sep 22, 2024

ellemouton commented Sep 23, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 3, 2024

ziggie1984 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MPins commented Oct 4, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 4, 2024

MPins commented Oct 7, 2024

MPins commented Oct 7, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 8, 2024

MPins commented Oct 8, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 8, 2024

MPins commented Oct 8, 2024

MPins commented Oct 8, 2024 • edited Loading

saubyk commented Oct 13, 2024

MPins commented Oct 13, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 13, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 13, 2024

MPins commented Oct 13, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 13, 2024

MPins commented Oct 13, 2024

saubyk commented Oct 13, 2024 • edited Loading

ellemouton commented Oct 16, 2024

MPins commented Oct 16, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 16, 2024 • edited Loading

ellemouton commented Oct 16, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 16, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 16, 2024

MPins commented Oct 16, 2024

ellemouton commented Oct 18, 2024

ellemouton commented Oct 18, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 18, 2024

MPins commented Oct 18, 2024 • edited Loading

ziggie1984 commented Oct 19, 2024

MPins commented Oct 21, 2024

ziggie1984 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MPins Oct 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziggie1984 Oct 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziggie1984 Oct 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ziggie1984 commented Oct 22, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 24, 2024

saubyk commented Oct 24, 2024

ziggie1984 commented Oct 24, 2024

MPins commented Sep 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ziggie1984 left a comment •

edited

Loading

MPins commented Oct 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

saubyk commented Oct 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ziggie1984 commented Oct 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

MPins commented Oct 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

MPins Oct 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ziggie1984 Oct 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ziggie1984 Oct 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading