Pierre <pm+li...@acinq.fr> writes: > Hi Rusty, > >> The feature masks are split into local features (which only >> affect the protocol between these two nodes) and global features >> (which can affect HTLCs and are thus also advertised to other >> nodes). > > I don't think that definition makes a lot of sense. For example I > probably want to advertise the fact that my node supports > option_data_loss_protect, which is a local feature. OTOH why would I > *not* want to avertise a feature that I support? I struggle to see > what is the point of making the distinction between local/global > actually.
The theory was that local features concern direct peers, global features concern others (thus *must* be advertized by gossip). I *expected* local features to become ubiquitous over time, so by the time an implementation decided "I don't even want to talk to nodes without feature X" then most nodes would support feature X, so you could simply connect and you're probably OK. So the question becomes: 1. Do people want to pre-filter by local features? 2. If so, only some local features, or all of them? If only some, then we make those ones global features. If all, then we remove the local/global distinction altogether? Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightningfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev