Good morning Owen,
> C now notes that B is lying, but is faced with the dilemma:
>
> "I could either say 'no' because I can plainly see that B is lying, or
> I could say 'yes' and get some free sats from the failed payment (or
> via the hope of a successful payment from a capacity increase in the
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 02:29:15PM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> I propose substantially the same thing here:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-September/003256.html
>
> In that proposal, I wrote:
>
> > Another thought is: Does the forwarding node have an incentive to
> >
Good morning Prayank,
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-December/001752.html
>
> Still trying to understand this problem and possible solutions. Interesting
> email though (TIL), thanks for sharing the link. Found related things
> explained Suredbits blog as
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> I heard before that the RGB colored coin project had plans to be compatible
> with Lightning so that channels could be denominated in an issued asset.
RGB will address lot of things but I was wondering if such things should exist
in LN implementations by default.
>
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
> >
> > > So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> > > proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> > > in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for
> > >
Good morning Owen,
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
>
> > So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> > proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> > in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:21 PM Owen Gunden wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
> > So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> > proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> > in no liquidity locked up) and then
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
> So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for
> failed payment attempts
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
> implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
> title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
I don't remember that but if
