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

feat: adding new flag to trade all possible quantity for buy/sell #1922

Draft
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator

attempts to resolve #1877

image
image
image

@rsercano rsercano self-assigned this Sep 27, 2020
@rsercano rsercano added the command line (CLI) Relating to the command line interface tools label Sep 27, 2020
Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not able to issue a market buy all order when the peer order's offered quantity is higher than we can fill:

➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli orderbook BTC/DAI

Trading pair: BTC/DAI
┌───────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                   │ Sell                                  │
├───────────────────┬───────────────────┼───────────────────┬───────────────────┤
│ Quantity          │ Price             │ Price             │ Quantity          │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┤
│                   │                   │ 100000            │ 0.02              │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli getbalance

Balance:
┌──────────┬───────────────┬────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
│ Currency │ Total Balance │ Channel Balance (Tradable) │ Wallet Balance (Not Tradable) │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ BTC      │ 465.55099411  │ 0.08608198                 │ 465.46491213                  │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ DAI      │ 6000          │ 1500                       │ 4500                          │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ ETH      │ 34.99859449   │ 10                         │ 24.99859449                   │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ USDT     │ 2000          │ 0                          │ 2000                          │
└──────────┴───────────────┴────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli buy all BTC/DAI mkt
9 FAILED_PRECONDITION: DAI outbound balance of 150000000000 is not sufficient for order amount of 200000000000

lib/service/Service.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Sep 28, 2020

I'm not able to issue a market buy all order when the peer order's offered quantity is higher than we can fill:

➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli orderbook BTC/DAI

Trading pair: BTC/DAI
┌───────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                   │ Sell                                  │
├───────────────────┬───────────────────┼───────────────────┬───────────────────┤
│ Quantity          │ Price             │ Price             │ Quantity          │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┤
│                   │                   │ 100000            │ 0.02              │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli getbalance

Balance:
┌──────────┬───────────────┬────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
│ Currency │ Total Balance │ Channel Balance (Tradable) │ Wallet Balance (Not Tradable) │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ BTC      │ 465.55099411  │ 0.08608198                 │ 465.46491213                  │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ DAI      │ 6000          │ 1500                       │ 4500                          │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ ETH      │ 34.99859449   │ 10                         │ 24.99859449                   │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ USDT     │ 2000          │ 0                          │ 2000                          │
└──────────┴───────────────┴────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli buy all BTC/DAI mkt
9 FAILED_PRECONDITION: DAI outbound balance of 150000000000 is not sufficient for order amount of 200000000000

How should we behave for such cases? I thought it was okay, also are you able to do same without all command, by specifying a quantity?

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Sep 28, 2020

How should we behave for such cases?

We should place an order with 1500 DAI, filling the existing order partially.

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Sep 28, 2020

How should we behave for such cases?

We should place an order with 1500 DAI, filling the existing order partially.

Sorry if I overlook something but how, in the orderbook the price is 100.000 DAI for 0.02 BTC (2000 DAI), when we try to buy it all with 6.000 DAI (our balance) even actually we have 1.500 channel balance, we can't fill it, we don't have enough funds, so it throws the error, also it comes from the underlying buy command, nothing I changed.

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Sep 28, 2020

Looks there was a misunderstanding what issue #1877 is supposed to do: it is not about buying all available quantity in the order book, but about

issue an order with the max possible quantity

(that your balance allows).

Todo:

  • rename all to max
  • sell max BTC/DAI mkt in above example is equivalent to sell 0.08608198 BTC/DAI mkt
  • sell max BTC/DAI 10123 in above example is equivalent to sell 0.08608198 BTC/DAI 10123
  • buy max BTC/DAI mkt in above example is equivalent to buy 0.015 BTC/DAI mkt
  • buy max BTC/DAI 10123 in above example is equivalent to buy 0.14818 BTC/DAI 10123

The behaviour of the order type limit or market is unchanged, e.g. remainder of market orders being discarded, remainder of limit orders entering the order book. Let's ignore routing fees for the moment, still have to think how to tackle these.

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sorry for misunderstanding, will resolve asap.

@sangaman sangaman added the grpc gRPC API label Sep 29, 2020
@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 2, 2020

Implemented below queries with tests;

rename all to max
sell max BTC/DAI mkt in above example is equivalent to sell 0.08608198 BTC/DAI mkt
sell max BTC/DAI 10123 in above example is equivalent to sell 0.08608198 BTC/DAI 10123
buy max BTC/DAI mkt in above example is equivalent to buy 0.015 BTC/DAI mkt

But for last one:

buy max BTC/DAI 10123 in above example is equivalent to buy 0.14818 BTC/DAI mkt

Does it mean market really? Or was it a typo? @kilrau

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 2, 2020

Looks like a typo.
It should be equivalent of buy (max_btc_qty_that_depends_on_my_current_dai_balance AND order_price) BTC/DAI price - buy 0.14818 BTC/DAI 10123

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Oct 2, 2020

Typo - fixed. Please make sure my logic checks out though @raladev

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 3, 2020

Should be fixed now, can you please check @raladev

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 5, 2020

  • u should not use channel balance from getbalance for max LTC/BTC amount because it does not contain reserved amount. use tradinglimits instead of that.
    Screenshot from 2020-10-05 14-20-59

  • something wrong with qty calculation for fourth case - it is halved for each next trade (see orderbook and calculated qty).
    Screenshot from 2020-10-05 15-16-27
    max_xud.log
    max_utils.log

  • for fourth case u should not determine qty as min{max_available_from_my_qty, max_available_in_orderbook} , u should always use max_available_from_my_qty. Why? just to have no exhausted logic, buy/sell command will do everything that necessary and u dont need to use max available qty in orderbook as a bound. WDYT @kilrau @rsercano ?

For now in following case u will place buy 0.002 BTC/DAI mkt instead of buy 0.015 BTC/DAI mkt

Trading pair: BTC/DAI
┌───────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                   │ Sell                                  │
├───────────────────┬───────────────────┼───────────────────┬───────────────────┤
│ Quantity          │ Price             │ Price             │ Quantity          │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┤
│                   │                   │ 100000            │ 0.002              │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
➜  xud git:(feature/buy-sell-all-grpc) ✗ ./bin/xucli getbalance

Balance:
┌──────────┬───────────────┬────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
│ Currency │ Total Balance │ Channel Balance (Tradable) │ Wallet Balance (Not Tradable) │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ BTC      │ 465.55099411  │ 0.08608198                 │ 465.46491213                  │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ DAI      │ 6000          │ 1500                       │ 4500                          │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ ETH      │ 34.99859449   │ 10                         │ 24.99859449                   │
├──────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
│ USDT     │ 2000          │ 0                          │ 2000                          │
└──────────┴───────────────┴────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
~
  • qty is 0 if orderbook is empty as a result i got incorrect error
    Screenshot from 2020-10-05 14-36-01

  • also,it is first time when i see [SERVICE] in logs and it seems this log should be moved to trace level (on same level with placeorder call).

Copy link
Contributor

@raladev raladev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Above

@rsercano rsercano requested a review from raladev October 6, 2020 13:28
@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 6, 2020

Thanks for checking @raladev, but I'm a bit confused:

  • I changed balance with tradinglimits.

  • For third case (I guess you meant third instead of fourth), here's the calculation:

    • Iterate over orderbook (because this's a mkt buy and we must know what we can buy)
    • For each order starting from the cheapest one;
      • Calculate maxBuyableFromThisPrice if order quantity in the order was infinitive by: currentBalance/order.price
      • Calculate buyable amount by taking account the order's quantity in the orderbook by: (maxBuyableFromThisPrice > order.quantity) ? order.quantity : maxBuyableFromThisPrice.
        Which shortly means if our max buyable is higher than order's quantity then use order's quantity otherwise use maximum buyable quantity which has been calculated in the previous step with our balance.
      • Sum calculated quantity.
      • Subtract order.price * calculatedQuantity from currentBalance for next iteration.
      • End iteration if currentBalance === 0
  • For now in following case u will place buy 0.002 BTC/DAI mkt instead of buy 0.015 BTC/DAI mkt
    I tried this again but this's not correct, it places 0.015 BTC/DAI.

  • qty is 0 if orderbook is empty as a result i got incorrect error.
    What do you mean? I didn't change the buy/sell process.

  • also,it is first time when i see [SERVICE] in logs and it seems this log should be moved to trace level (on same level with placeorder call).
    You're right. I'll remove it as soon as we complete our tests, and this PR is ready to merge.

@rsercano rsercano requested review from raladev and removed request for raladev October 6, 2020 13:48
@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 6, 2020

qty is 0 if orderbook is empty as a result i got incorrect error.

What do you mean? I didn't change the buy/sell process

max flag for buy max DAI/USDT mkt when orderbook is empty means buy 0 DAI/USDT mkt for now

100 sat error is correct for buy 0 DAI/USDT mkt
BUT it is not correct buy max DAI/USDT mkt because i as a user did not set any sat amount, So that should be another err.
Which one? Something like max flag can not be used for market order now because order books is empty @kilrau @rsercano

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 20, 2020

@raladev I fixed logic of market orders for max, could you please recheck.
For 100 sat error: That means I need to pull this logic from orderbook.placeLimitOrder/placeMarketOrder to Service. I'm not sure about that although you're right currently it doesn't seem very good.

So waiting confirmation for this.

p.s. I rebased from master.

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 20, 2020

  • assertion err during mkt order filling (something definetly wrong in qty calculation - 8276396.689944529 quantity)

Trading pair: BTC/USDT
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                            │ Sell                                           │
├───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┼───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┤
│ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │
├───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ 0.01065863    │ 11608.7272  │ NestGrid         │ 0.38919755    │ 12082.5528  │ NestGrid         │
└───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┘

Trading pair: ETH/BTC
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                            │ Sell                                           │
├───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┼───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┤
│ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │
├───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ 14.1075       │ 0.03062206  │ SheriffSolution  │ 1.2818432     │ 0.03187194  │ SheriffSolution  │
└───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┘

Trading pair: LTC/BTC
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                            │ Sell                                           │
├───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┼───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┤
│ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │
├───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ 10            │ 0.004       │ OzoneYellow      │ 10            │ 0.0042      │ OzoneYellow      │
└───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┘

Trading pair: USDT/DAI
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Buy                                            │ Sell                                           │
├───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┼───────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────────┤
│ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │ Quantity      │ Price       │ Alias            │
├───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ 500           │ 1           │ SheriffSolution  │ 500           │ 1.01        │ SheriffSolution  │
└───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────────┘
simnet > tradinglimits

Trading Limits:
┌──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ Currency │ Max Buy   │ Max Sell │ Reserved Outbound │ Reserved Inbound │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ BTC      │ 2.4499095 │ 2.45     │ 0                 │ 0                │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ DAI      │ 100       │ 1500     │ 0                 │ 0                │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ ETH      │ 0.1       │ 10       │ 0                 │ 0                │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ LTC      │ 4.899638  │ 4.9      │ 0                 │ 0                │
├──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ USDT     │ 100       │ 1000     │ 0                 │ 0                │
└──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────────────┴──────────────────┘
simnet > buy max BTC/USDT mkt
13 INTERNAL: Assertion failed
simnet > buy max BTC/USDT mkt
13 INTERNAL: Assertion failed
simnet > buy max BTC/USDT mkt
13 INTERNAL: Assertion failed
simnet > 

20/10/2020 13:25:17.607 [ORDERBOOK] debug: reduced order 33d381a0-12d7-11eb-9dbe-b5b356f20d8a by 8276396.689944529 quantity while matching order b1da3b70-12d7-11eb-95e8-dd9ce37d5507
20/10/2020 13:25:17.608 [ORDERBOOK] debug: matched with peer 03cecb5ecd7f49902092cbf636b514ba3281aaf1bef95cfb249565ef65804c73f5 (NestGrid), executing swap on taker b1da3b70-12d7-11eb-95e8-dd9ce37d5507 and maker 33d381a0-12d7-11eb-9dbe-b5b356f20d8a for 8276396.689944529
20/10/2020 13:25:17.610 [SWAPS] debug: New deal: {"takerCltvDelta":40,"rHash":"8fcdc06e16f36438564ee5a804f8017e1da8e81675cda49ee4aa0ec32d074a8a","orderId":"33d381a0-12d7-11eb-9dbe-b5b356f20d8a","pairId":"BTC/USDT","proposedQuantity":8276396.689944529,"rPreimage":"d500919bdd6810dd4f017796e93794fcafc715507689cb2184924e0c63e9c55b","takerCurrency":"BTC","makerCurrency":"USDT","takerAmount":8276396.689944529,"makerAmount":100000000000,"takerUnits":8276396,"makerUnits":1000000000,"destination":"indra8BVnK5rCtz3sLpjVJY7Nfu7siw4bGZk6Pr9sEmDQ9eCtn36ExB","peerPubKey":"03cecb5ecd7f49902092cbf636b514ba3281aaf1bef95cfb249565ef65804c73f5","localId":"b1da3b70-12d7-11eb-95e8-dd9ce37d5507","price":12082.5528,"isBuy":false,"phase":0,"state":0,"role":0,"createTime":1603200317610}
20/10/2020 13:25:17.610 [ORDERBOOK] error: swap between orders 33d381a0-12d7-11eb-9dbe-b5b356f20d8a & b1da3b70-12d7-11eb-95e8-dd9ce37d5507 failed due to undefined
20/10/2020 13:25:17.610 [ORDERBOOK] error: swap for 8276396.689944529 failed during order matching due to unexpected error: AssertionError: Assertion failed
    at new goog.asserts.AssertionError (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:81:876)
    at Object.goog.asserts.doAssertFailure_ (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:82:257)
    at Object.goog.asserts.assert (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:83:83)
    at jspb.BinaryEncoder.writeUnsignedVarint64 (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:457:77)
    at jspb.BinaryWriter.writeUnsignedVarint64_ (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:478:507)
    at jspb.BinaryWriter.writeUint64 (/app/node_modules/google-protobuf/google-protobuf.js:483:471)
    at Function.proto.xudp2p.SwapRequestPacket.serializeBinaryToWriter (/app/dist/proto/xudp2p_pb.js:4076:12)
    at proto.xudp2p.SwapRequestPacket.serializeBinary (/app/dist/proto/xudp2p_pb.js:4053:34)
    at SwapRequestPacket.serialize (/app/dist/p2p/packets/types/SwapRequestPacket.js:40:28)
    at SwapRequestPacket.Packet.toRaw (/app/dist/p2p/packets/Packet.js:52:37)
20/10/2020 13:25:17.611 [RPC] error: call /xudrpc.Xud/PlaceOrder errored with code 2: Assertion failed

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 20, 2020

I added exact same test case for BTC/USDT, it's getting calculated as 0.08276396689944529, can't get the conclusion you're at @raladev

EDIT: 8276396.689944529 can this be in satoshis? Because it seems correct to me, it's 1000 (USDT) / 12082.5528 (Order price)

Copy link
Collaborator

@sangaman sangaman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I'm late to the party here. I think by its nature this is a complicated feature to implement. Here are a few high level thoughts:

  • I don't understand why we're concerned with the swap client type when determining the max quantity?

  • The current implementation is still making lots of checks of the order book, as I understand that's for satisfying market orders but I think the logic becomes very complex and unreliable at that point. It's impractical to calculate the max quantity for a market buy order up front, since we don't know which orders in the order book will successfully swap with us until we actually try them. It's certainly possible to do this (maybe with a matching procedure that allows us to specify quantity in terms of quote currency units) but I don't think we should be moving a whole bunch of logic into Service.ts to do it or make any sweeping changes as part of this PR, instead I think it makes sense to reduce the scope of this PR and only allow the all/max flag in certain cases.

  • I'm concerned that routing fees are going to make this feature unreliable in the real world, if we're really trying to use every last satoshi in our channel then we won't have any left over for routing fees.

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@raladev @kilrau could you please point out what to do for this PR then according to the @sangaman's review.

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Oct 21, 2020

Agree with @sangaman . Let's do the following:

  1. only allow max flag for limit orders, remove all unnecessary order book checks as @sangaman mentioned above -> simplify to the best degree possible. Throw a meaningful max flag can't be used for market orders error.
  2. once done, real world tests on simnet by @raladev to see by how much the calculation is off - routing fees and channel reserve probably both need to be accounted for on lightning

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rsercano commented Oct 21, 2020

Changed flag to be only usable with limit orders, and throwing error in case of market orders, removed market tests. @raladev could you please check ?

Regarding swap clients @raladev can explain better than me @sangaman

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 21, 2020

  • I don't understand why we're concerned with the swap client type when determining the max quantity?

because connext currencies have different way for max amount calculation because of not-real max-buy bound - #1922 (comment)

@sangaman
Copy link
Collaborator

sangaman commented Oct 21, 2020

because connext currencies have different way for max amount calculation because of not-real max-buy bound - #1922 (comment)

Gotcha. If we want to ignore the connext maximum capacity since it can be dynamically increased, for purposes of the code/logic, I think it's better to make a method like getMaximumInboundCapacity for the SwapClient class and have Connext always return POSITIVE_INFINITY or something similar. Basically the current logic with 4 different if statements dpeneidng on the swap client types involved is hard to follow and seems fragile especially if we add or change swap clients in the future.

Also worth noting that in such cases the order will fail with an error due to insufficient collateral and will say to try again in a little while, I think that's fine but wanted to make sure we were all aware.

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 21, 2020

  • remove max flag example for mkt order from the help
  xucli buy max BTC/USDT mkt    place a market order to buy max BTC for USDT

Copy link
Contributor

@raladev raladev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Above

@raladev
Copy link
Contributor

raladev commented Oct 21, 2020

  • I'm concerned that routing fees are going to make this feature unreliable in the real world, if we're really trying to use every last satoshi in our channel then we won't have any left over for routing fees.

not talking about routing fees, but i cant swap for full amount even with directly connected lnd node and i dont know why @sangaman

Screenshot from 2020-10-21 18-30-50

simnet > lndbtc-lncli listchannels
{
    "channels": [
        {
            "active": true,
            "remote_pubkey": "0252f366111259996a101c5a82c880e9c95c8278d7e668c40163c0db656161cbbf",
            "channel_point": "ce47babe9783eb188568ca944aa445b9d2a53f7dbc577c2206e82eabe7f908ca:0",
            "chan_id": "184711356396666880",
            "capacity": "2000000",
            "local_balance": "64935",
            "remote_balance": "1926014",
            "commit_fee": "9051",
            "commit_weight": "724",
            "fee_per_kw": "12500",
            "unsettled_balance": "0",
            "total_satoshis_sent": "926014",
            "total_satoshis_received": "0",
            "num_updates": "4",
            "pending_htlcs": [
            ],
            "csv_delay": 240,
            "private": false,
            "initiator": true,
            "chan_status_flags": "ChanStatusDefault",
            "local_chan_reserve_sat": "20000",
            "remote_chan_reserve_sat": "20000",
            "static_remote_key": true,
            "commitment_type": "STATIC_REMOTE_KEY",
            "lifetime": "4163",
            "uptime": "4163",
            "close_address": "",
            "push_amount_sat": "1000000",
            "thaw_height": 0,
            "local_constraints": {
                "csv_delay": 240,
                "chan_reserve_sat": "20000",
                "dust_limit_sat": "573",
                "max_pending_amt_msat": "1980000000",
                "min_htlc_msat": "1",
                "max_accepted_htlcs": 483
            },
            "remote_constraints": {
                "csv_delay": 240,
                "chan_reserve_sat": "20000",
                "dust_limit_sat": "573",
                "max_pending_amt_msat": "1980000000",
                "min_htlc_msat": "1",
                "max_accepted_htlcs": 483
            }
        }
    ]
}

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

because connext currencies have different way for max amount calculation because of not-real max-buy bound - #1922 (comment)

Gotcha. If we want to ignore the connext maximum capacity since it can be dynamically increased, for purposes of the code/logic, I think it's better to make a method like getMaximumInboundCapacity for the SwapClient class and have Connext always return POSITIVE_INFINITY or something similar. Basically the current logic with 4 different if statements dpeneidng on the swap client types involved is hard to follow and seems fragile especially if we add or change swap clients in the future.

Also worth noting that in such cases the order will fail with an error due to insufficient collateral and will say to try again in a little while, I think that's fine but wanted to make sure we were all aware.

I couldn't get how creating getMaximumInboundCapacity would resolve it, since there's a calculation depending on this, and it would still require 4 if statements, if I'm not mistaken?

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

  • remove max flag example for mkt order from the help
  xucli buy max BTC/USDT mkt    place a market order to buy max BTC for USDT

@sangaman could you please clarify what to do for point 3? I'm not sure if it's okay to pull order quantity check to here.

@raladev for point 2 I still need clarification of how much of decimals to be truncated @sangaman

@sangaman
Copy link
Collaborator

I couldn't get how creating getMaximumInboundCapacity would resolve it, since there's a calculation depending on this, and it would still require 4 if statements, if I'm not mistaken?

No you shouldn't need any if statements, you would just assign your maxBuyable variables to the value returned by getMaximumInboundCapacity by the swap client (rather than the max buy from trading limits), and each swap client could implement it separately with connext returning an unlimited amount. The idea is just to have generic logic in the way we deal with swap clients.

Another option is to make connext return an effectively unlimited amount for its inbound/buy trading limits, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, especially since we will reject connext buy orders that exceed the inbound limit.

@sangaman could you please clarify what to do for point 3? I'm not sure if it's okay to pull order quantity check to here.

Do you mean point 3 re: fees? I don't have a great solution for it, it's not a concern with direct channels like we're doing here for tests but it will be any time there are hops involved.

@raladev for point 2 I still need clarification of how much of decimals to be truncated @sangaman

We don't use fractional amounts for quantity and the grpc layer is using integers for those values so you'd need to remove any decimal places from the amounts calculated when you divide by price.

I am still unsure about the usefulness or reliability of this feature overall...

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I couldn't get how creating getMaximumInboundCapacity would resolve it, since there's a calculation depending on this, and it would still require 4 if statements, if I'm not mistaken?

No you shouldn't need any if statements, you would just assign your maxBuyable variables to the value returned by getMaximumInboundCapacity by the swap client (rather than the max buy from trading limits), and each swap client could implement it separately with connext returning an unlimited amount. The idea is just to have generic logic in the way we deal with swap clients.

Another option is to make connext return an effectively unlimited amount for its inbound/buy trading limits, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, especially since we will reject connext buy orders that exceed the inbound limit.

@sangaman could you please clarify what to do for point 3? I'm not sure if it's okay to pull order quantity check to here.

Do you mean point 3 re: fees? I don't have a great solution for it, it's not a concern with direct channels like we're doing here for tests but it will be any time there are hops involved.

@raladev for point 2 I still need clarification of how much of decimals to be truncated @sangaman

We don't use fractional amounts for quantity and the grpc layer is using integers for those values so you'd need to remove any decimal places from the amounts calculated when you divide by price.

I am still unsure about the usefulness or reliability of this feature overall...

For feature reliability I'm not sure about mainnet too if we talk about other fees etc. But for current implementation I guess I couldn't explain it well.

Currently maxBuyable for a swap client completely depends on quote's swap client and even if I implement getMaximumInboundCapacity into swap clients, I would still need to write 4 ifs to check because calculation completely depends on that according to the @raladev's points.

@rsercano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Let me know if you guys want to continue on this or not please.

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Oct 27, 2020

Do you mean point 3 re: fees? I don't have a great solution for it, it's not a concern with direct channels like we're doing here for tests but it will be any time there are hops involved.
I am still unsure about the usefulness or reliability of this feature overall...

Usefulness is described in the issue. Reliability - agreed. This won't be reliable without probing the route and accounting for exact fees. Which I imagine will turn out not too trivial since pre-match probing isn't a flow we currently have.

Let me know if you guys want to continue on this or not please.

I think this PR has been open on for too long and proved not to be the quick-win we initially thought it will be. Reviews have been slow too. I am putting this into draft state and we can pick it up some point in the future. Sry @michael1011

@kilrau
Copy link
Contributor

kilrau commented Oct 27, 2020

Todo's when this is being picked up:

  • probe routes for lighting currencies pre-match if (and only if) the max flag is used.
  • fix open issues from above

@kilrau kilrau marked this pull request as draft October 27, 2020 10:47
@sangaman sangaman removed their request for review October 5, 2022 15:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
command line (CLI) Relating to the command line interface tools grpc gRPC API
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

buy and sell max possible quantity
5 participants