Re: [Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of option_simplfied_commitment

2018-11-21 Thread Rusty Russell
Matt Corallo writes: > Oh, also, obviously, the HTLC transactions need a pushme output, though > luckily only one for the side we expect to be broadcasting the transaction. The intent was that HTLC transactions are now SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY (since we don't need the txid), so you Br

Re: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP

2018-11-21 Thread Rusty Russell
Johan Torås Halseth writes: > Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver > assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of > course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is > signalling NAMP). This would effectively become

Re: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP

2018-11-21 Thread Rusty Russell
ZmnSCPxj writes: > Good morning Rusty, > >> And do not play with `amount_to_forward`, as it's an important >> signal to the final node that the previous node did not offer less value >> for the HTLC than it was supposed to. (You could steal the top bit to >> signal partial payment if you really wa

Re: [Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of option_simplfied_commitment

2018-11-21 Thread Matt Corallo
Oh, also, obviously, the HTLC transactions need a pushme output, though luckily only one for the side we expect to be broadcasting the transaction. On 11/21/18 2:54 AM, Matt Corallo wrote: Not sure if others already realized this, but in thinking about our RBF policy hack from Adelaide a bit mo

Re: [Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of option_simplfied_commitment

2018-11-21 Thread Matt Corallo
Ah, oops, indeed, that is much cleaner :). Still need a CSV of 1, though :(. > On Nov 21, 2018, at 17:45, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Matt Corallo writes: >> Oh, also, obviously, the HTLC transactions need a pushme output, though >> luckily only one for the side we expect to be broadcasting the t

Re: [Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF

2018-11-21 Thread lisa neigut
Hello Rusty. Exciting stuff! A few observations: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:18 AM Rusty Russell wrote: > ### Confirming a splice: `splice_confirm` > > 1. type: 43 (`splice_confirm`) (`option_splice`) > 2. data: >* [`32`:`channel_id`] >* [`64`:`signature`] >* [`2`:`num_witnesses`] >

Re: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP

2018-11-21 Thread Johan Torås Halseth
Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is signalling NAMP). Cheers, Johan On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:55 AM ZmnSCPxj via Lightni