Which brings us back to the initial proposal that just signals the awareness of a temporary underpayment with the single "more is coming"-bit.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:49 PM Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> writes: > > But what if 2 of those paths fail? > > It would be better to merge them into a single payment along the > expensive 4th path. > > However, the remaining succeeding path has already given `numpaths`=3. > > > > Using `numpaths` overcommits to what you will do in the future, and is > unnecessary anyway. > > The payee is interested in the total value, not the details of the split. > > Excellent point. > > 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
