Re: [Lightning-dev] BOLT11 In the World of Scriptless Scripts

2018-11-01 Thread Anthony Towns
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] Recovering protocol for Lightning network

2018-11-01 Thread Johan TorĂ¥s Halseth
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] RFC: simplifications and suggestions on open/accept limits.

2018-11-01 Thread Rusty Russell
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

[Lightning-dev] Proposal for "local" channel announcements.

2018-11-01 Thread Rusty Russell
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