That might not be so desirable, since it leaks the current channel capacity to the user. Depending on how fine grained the amount in the invoice is and how the user can control it, he could do a binary search over capacities and very reliably tell how much capacity you have and track it over time. That is still the case for a single channel, but if you always chose the same channel it reduces how much info is leaked.
Cheers, Christian Johan Torås Halseth <joha...@gmail.com> writes: > Any reason not to include _all_ (up to a limit) incoming channels with > sufficient capacity? > > Cheers, > Johan > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:12 AM Rusty Russell <ru...@blockstream.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm considering a change to c-lightning, where `invoice` would >> automatically append an 'r' field for a channel which has sufficient >> *incoming* capacity for the amount (using a weighted probability across >> our peers). >> >> This isn't quite what 'r' was for, but it would be a useful >> hint for payment routing and also potentially for establishing an >> initial channel. This is an issue for the Blockstream Store which >> deliberately doesn't advertize an address any more to avoid >> centralization. >> >> Thoughts welcome! >> Rusty. >> _______________________________________________ >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> Lightningemail@example.com >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightningfirstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightningemail@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev