I realized the other day that the wumbo bit should also likely encompass wumbo payments. What good is a wumbo channel that doesn't also allow wumbo payments? Naturally if the bit is signalled globally, then this should also signal the willingness of the node to forward larger payments up to their max_htlc limit within the channel_update for that link.
On a similar note, I was reviewing the newer-ish section of the spec concerning the optional max_htlc value. I noticed an inconsistency: it states the value should be below the max capacity of the channel, but makes no reference to the current (pre wumbo) _max HTLC limit_. As a result, as it reads now, one may interpret signalling of the optional field as eligibility to route wumbo payments in a pre-wumbo channel world. -- Laolu On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:34 PM Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > writes: > > Thus, I propose: > > > > * The local feature bit `option_i_wumbo_you_wumbo`, which indicates that > the node is willing to wumbo with its counterparty in the connection. > > * The global feature bit `option_anyone_can_wumbo`, which indicates that > the node is willing to wumbo with any node. > > I think we need to name `option_anyone_can_wumbo` to `option_wumborama`? > > Otherwise, this looks excellent. > > Thanks, > Rusty. > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
