Joost Jager <joost.ja...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello all, > > I'd like to bring up an idea that builds on top of "non-strict" forwarding. > I commented about this on conner's non-strict forwarding lightning-rfc pr, > but it is probably better to discuss it on its own in this list.
The decision was made to allow additional channel_update in the error reply: DECISION: document that scid is not binding, allow extra channel_updates in errors for “upselling”. AFAICT this is a deeply weird case. If another channel had capacity you would have just used it. If another channel doesn't, sending a channel_update doesn't help. And if there's a channel available at a higher feerate or longer timeout, it raises the question of why you're doing that rather than just taking the offer in front of you; that value clearly used to be acceptable, and now you risk them routing around you. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightningfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev