Good morning Ariel and Rene and list,
I have started to consider how best to attack the modified Luaces-Pickhardt
JIT-Routing, which reuses the same payment hash as the message to forward.
(In the case where JIT-Routing is used by the ultimate source of a payment, the
payment hash of the
Good morning list
I have been thinking about how JIT-Routing can allow the network to be more
private and scalable than it currently is today. Rene has mentioned that
JIT-Routing allows channel balance information to affect pathing decisions
without the source node being aware. I would take
Good morning list,
I have been thinking of JIT-Routing in the context of unidirectional channels,
as for example in Eclair Mobile.
Now of course unidirectional-only nodes as in Eclair Mobile cannot forward and
cannot be intermediate nodes.
However, as I pointed out in previous email, the same
Good morning all,
I have been thinking further about JIT-Routing.
Particularly, the extension of Rene of the idea from Ariel, to use the same
payment hash (payment point in the future).
I observe that this effectively creates a sort of "local bass amplifier"
Good morning Rene and Ariel,
> Hey everyone,
> I am glad the suggestion is being picked up. At this time I want to respond
> to two of the concerns that have been thrown in. I have some other comments
> and ideas but would like to hold them back so that we can have more people
I am glad the suggestion is being picked up. At this time I want to respond
to two of the concerns that have been thrown in. I have some other comments
and ideas but would like to hold them back so that we can have more people
joining the discussion without bias also this mail will
Hello Rene, ZmnSCPxj, and list
I really like the proposal and I'm sure it's the correct way forward for
reducing payment failures and increasing privacy (through mitigating probing
based network analysis)
However I am concerned that this proposal could introduce a vulnerability to a
Good morning Rene and list,
Let us consider then the rule *when* a rebalancing would be beneficial to the
The node is offered a fee amount (`offered_fee_amount`) for the forwarding.
It knows that, under current channel states, it will definitely have to fail
and earn 0 fees.
Good morning Rene,
The base idea is good at first glance.
However, let us consider this situation:
A - B
1.5 | / 0.5
0.5 | / 0.75
In this mail I introduce the Just in Time Routing schema (aka JIT Routing).
Its main idea is to mitigate the disadvantages from our current source
based routing (i.e.: guessing a route that will work in the sense that it
has enough liquidity in each channel) and make the routing
Mail list logo