On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:20:46AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> There's been some discussion of what the lightning payment flow
> might look like in the future, and I thought I'd try to look forwards so
> we can avoid painting ourselves into a corner now. I haven't spent time
> on
Hi, Margherita,
If you haven't already, look into "data loss protection" as defined in the
BOLTs. It is similar to to what you are suggesting, with A being able to
tell B that it lost state for the A<->B channel, and if B is cooperative it
will help A recover its funds.
You can also look into
Gert-Jaap Glasbergen writes:
> As for htlc_minimum_msat I would not feel good about it being dropped.
> It is the only protection measure I saw in the standard against
> producing trimmed HTLCs. In my view the safe default is to set it above
> the dust limit to avoid it to get trimmed, and
I'm not sure if this is too large a hammer for a small problem, but I
thought it worth writing up.
Currently, a node with only private channels loses deniability of
payments; if you have an unannounced channel with me, I can be fairly
sure any payment I see coming from that channel is from you
