ZmnSCPxj writes:
> Good morning Rusty,
>
> To clarify, it seems the below:
>
> 1. There is a "private" node, one whose channels are all non-published.
> 2. There is a public node who knows that everything that passes through the
> channel with the "private" node comes only from the "private"
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:30:48PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> I'm not sure. Jonas Nick proposed a scheme, which very much assumes
> Schnorr AFAICT:
> Jonas Nick wrote:
> > How I thought it would work is that the invoice would contain a
> > Schnorr nonce R.
(Note this means the "invoice" must
Anthony Towns writes:
>> > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just
>> >sha256?
>> Worse, it becomes "I support secp256k1 with ECDSA" then a new "I support
>> secp256k1 with Schnorr". You need a continuous path of channels with
>> the same feature.
>
> I don't
