ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> writes:

> Good morning all,
>
>> I initially suggested we could just have a 2-byte "number of total
>> pieces", but it turns out there's a use-case where that doesn't work
>> well: splitting the bill. There each payer is unrelated, so doesn't
>> know how the others are paying.
>
> This would also not work well in case of a dynamic algorithm that greedily 
> tries to pay the whole amount at once, then splits it if it does not fit, 
> with each split also being liable to splitting.
> Such a dynamic algorithm would not know in the first place how many splits it 
> will take, but it *will* know the total amount it intends to deliver.

Well, that would have worked because received takes *max* of the values
received, ie, sender starts with A and B, both with "numpieces=2",
then splits B into BA and BB, both with "numpieces=3".

But it's bad for the separate-payer case anyway, so...

Thanks,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Reply via email to