Conner Fromknecht <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > Hi all, > >> But it's unnecessary for the recipient to know the total amount I meant >> to pay; they just need to return the receipt once it exceeds the amount >> they want. > > I think it’s true that the recipient doesn’t need to know necessarily, but > sending the intended amount is more robust IMO, since it provides an order > invariant hint for when the receiver can safely settle. > > If the sender does amount fuzzing (as CL does) or adds a tip, it’s possible > for the final partial payment to be less than `amount_to_pay` - > `invoice_amount`, causing the sender to settle prematurely. Otherwise, we > might want to specify that no split should be less than the amount > overpaid. > > Of course, if that amount never comes through yet the invoice is satisfied, > the receiver can always choose to settle even if the remaining amount never > arrives.
It's more code, and takes 8 more bytes out of the onion. I've started coding up option_simplfied_commitment and it's making me terrified of adding any additional complexity :( The more compelling argument is that partial-payment donations might want this, but it's marginal, IMHO. We should be aiming for static invoices for the donate case. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightningemail@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev