> I am forking this thread as my reply is not at all related to the JIT-Routing.
Sorry I think my last reply was also getting off subject as well.
Thank you for forking the thread
> Nonexistent channels (i.e. channels that do not have some backing UTXO in the
> Bitcoin blockchain) are not safe
> I am forking this thread as my reply is not at all related to the JIT-Routing.
Sorry I think my last reply was also getting off subject as well.
Thank you for forking the thread
> Nonexistent channels (i.e. channels that do not have some backing UTXO in the
> Bitcoin blockchain) are not safe
Good morning Ariel,
> > A good pruning heuristic is "channel capacity", which can be checked
> > onchain (the value of the UTXO backing the channel is the channel capacity).
> > It is good to keep channels with large capacity in the routemap, because
> > such large channels are more likely to
Good morning Rene,
>
> Maybe I oversee something - in that case sorry for spamming the list - but I
> don't understand how you could know the distance from yourself if you don't
> know the entire topology? (unless u use it on the pruned view as you
> suggested)
That is correct, and the
Good morning Rene and Pierre,
An issue here (which I think also affects Rendezvous Routing) is with
compatibility of the HMAC.
HMAC covers the entire 1300-byte `hops_data` field.
If, in order to reach the next trampoline, more than one intermediate node is
inserted, would the packet that
