This shouldn't be problem, as the invoice will already indicate that the node supports BaseAMP. If you have a reason to not reveal that you support BAMP for certain invoices, you'll just not specify it in the invoice, and act non-BAMPy when receiving payments to this payment hash.
Of course, this will also be opt-in for both sides and won't affect existing nodes in any way. Cheers, Johan On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > Johan Torås Halseth <joha...@gmail.com> writes: > > Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver > > assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of > > course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is > > signalling NAMP). > > This would effectively become a probe for Base AMP; if you get a partial > payment error, it's because the recipient didn't support Base AMP. > > Seems cleaner to have a flag, both on BOLT11 and inside the onion. Then > it's explicitly opt-in for both sides and doesn't affect existing nodes > in any way. > > Cheers, > Rusty. >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
