Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting, but I don't know if it's right or not. I was assuming many small channels would be partially self regulating because people would have to pay for more on chain transaction fees for the opening and closing of the channels. Andy Schroder On 01/02/2018 08:11 AM

[Lightning-dev] Descriptive annotations visible to intermediate nodes

Are there, or will there be, annotations one can add to a lightning transaction that can be read by all intermediate nodes along a given route? Conversely, can one add annotations readable only by certain specific known (to sender) intermediate nodes? ___

Re: [Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

Good morning Praveen, For some background please consider the article I wrote: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/offchain/generalized.html Especially "Requirements on the Blockchain". For cases where the funding transaction is funded by only one side, then full SegWit is not needed, "only" some kind o

Re: [Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

Which is the most mature Lightning implementation right now? I want to setup a lightning node and start experimenting with it. Also did anybody create a protocol diagram of how lightning works? (similar to the one below about SSL) [image: Inline image 1] I have seen higher level diagrams but as

Re: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels

I see, are you suggesting that large channels could be an indicator of a large actor trying to attract a lot of payment traffic? Not sure whether that is really a good measure, since it is trivial for a large node to masquerade as any number of smaller nodes, thus hiding its size. We definitely wa

Re: [Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

That’s correct :) On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 15:34, Praveen Baratam wrote: Thank you for explaining @Hafeez & @Johan Now that all the BIPs necessary for LN including SegWit (Softfork) are active on the mainnet, are we just waiting for the LN implementation to mature or are there any other issues? ᐧ

Re: [Lightning-dev] Replaceable Funding Transactions

Hi ZmnSCPxj, I don't see why this wouldn't work as long as implementations on both ends supports channels multiplexing, like lnd or eclair do (didn't test it though). But being the accepting node, I wouldn't like receiving too many channel requests that never confirm. Also, most of the time I don

Re: [Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

Hi, Before you can safely broadcast the funding transaction, the two parties involved in a channel must have signed a commitment transaction spending the output from the funding transaction. Without segwit, the funding transaction can be malleated, leaving the commitment transaction invalid, and

Re: [Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

to fix transaction malleability On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Praveen Baratam wrote: > Why is SegWit required for LN? If we wait for the *funding transaction* > to be *confirmed*, we can then safely create and update unconfirmed > commitment transactions... > > I don't see how SegWit is import

[Lightning-dev] SegWit and LN

Why is SegWit required for LN? If we wait for the *funding transaction* to be *confirmed*, we can then safely create and update unconfirmed commitment transactions... I don't see how SegWit is important here... Am I missing something? -- Dr. Praveen Baratam about.me