Good morning Rusty and aj,
On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:38 AM, Rusty Russell
wrote:
> > Technically speaking, all that AJ in Australia needs to show is that he or
> > she knows, the private key behind the public key that is indicated on the
> > invoice.
> > Before payment, only the payee
Anthony Towns writes:
> FWIW, I don't see reddit as a particularly viable "court"; there's
> no way for reddit to tell who's actually right in a dispute, eg if I
> say blockstream didn't send stickers I paid for, and blockstream says
> they did; ie there's no need for a sock puppet in the above
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 08:04:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> > - just send multiple payments with the same hash:
> >> > works with sha256
> >> > privacy not improved much (some intermediary nodes no longer know
> >> > full invoice value)
> >> > can claim partial payments
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:05:17AM +, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote:
> > And it just doesn't work unless you give over uniquely identifying
> > information. AJ posts to r/bitcoin demonstrating payment, demanding his
> > goods. Sock puppet says "No, I'm the AJ in Australia" and cut & pastes
ZmnSCPxj writes:
> Good morning Rusty and aj and list,
>
>>
>> > > In the payer-supplied data case, I think 'm' should include a signature
>> > > for a key only the payer knows: this lets them prove they made the
>> > > payment.
>> >
>> > I don't object to that, but I think it's unnecessary; as
Good morning Rusty and aj and list,
>
> > > In the payer-supplied data case, I think 'm' should include a signature
> > > for a key only the payer knows: this lets them prove they made the
> > > payment.
> >
> > I don't object to that, but I think it's unnecessary; as long as there
> > was a
Good morninh list,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 9:37 AM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Rusty, aj, and list,
>
> > > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just
> > > sha256?
> > >
> >
> >
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:30:48PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> I'm not sure. Jonas Nick proposed a scheme, which very much assumes
> Schnorr AFAICT:
> Jonas Nick wrote:
> > How I thought it would work is that the invoice would contain a
> > Schnorr nonce R.
(Note this means the "invoice" must
Anthony Towns writes:
>> > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just
>> >sha256?
>> Worse, it becomes "I support secp256k1 with ECDSA" then a new "I support
>> secp256k1 with Schnorr". You need a continuous path of channels with
>> the same feature.
>
> I don't
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:45:58PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > 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
Anthony Towns writes:
> 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
Good morning Rusty, aj, and list,
> > - channel announcements: do you support secp256k1 for hashes or just
> > sha256?
> >
>
> Worse, it becomes "I support secp256k1 with ECDSA" then a new "I support
> secp256k1 with Schnorr". You need a continuous path of channels with
> the same
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
