Good morning Konstantin and yas,
Indeed, yas is quite correct: the money is still locked, and all that this
proposal adds is to limit the funds locked by having S be a direct peer of the
payer.
In the case proposed by Konstantin, this is simply locked between both A and S
only, but it *must*
Rusty Russell writes:
> Olaoluwa Osuntokun writes:
>> Defaults don't necessarily indicate higher/lower reliability. Issuing a
>> single CLI command to raise/lower the fees on one's node doesn't magically
>> make the owner of said node a _better_ routing node operator.
>
> No, but those who put