Matt Corallo writes:
>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 01:56, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> Matt Corallo writes:
>>> Somehow I missed this thread, but I did note in a previous meeting - these
>>> issues are great fodder for fuzzing. We’ve had a fuzzer which aggressively
>>> tests for precisely these
I looked into this more closely, and as far as I understand it, the spec
already states that you should not count dust HTLCs:
Oops! We do the same thing, we will fix that.
On 4/26/21 11:03, Eugene Siegel wrote:
I would have to think more about the issue where it's not possible to lower the
Lnd counts dust + trimmed HTLCs towards max_accepted_htlcs. We definitely
shouldn't be counting dust towards that amount. I would have to think more
about the issue where it's not possible to lower the feerate though. That
seems like a spec issue?
___
I looked into this more closely, and as far as I understand it, the spec
already states that you should not count dust HTLCs:
*if result would be offering more than the remote's max_accepted_htlcs
HTLCs, in the remote commitment transaction: *
- *MUST NOT add an HTLC.*
Note that it clearly
