Andy Schroder
On 03/19/2018 09:59 AM, Corné Plooy wrote:
It is a public key hash, yes. But what I refer to is that the payee-determined
route section, which starts from an introduction point, protects the payee from
being located by the payer, but how did the payer contact the payee in the
Andy Schroder
On 03/19/2018 08:06 AM, Corné Plooy wrote:
What about enforcing a maximum payment amount that can be refunded?
Can this help make the amount not a requirement? This way the payment
amount will still be open to the payer, but it will have a constraint.
I see no use case anymore
Good morning Corne,
> > I suppose the use-case here is that the payee uses many TOR addresses with
> > only one LN node.
>
> Yes. Use different TOR addresses for things you want to keep separated.
>
> Any TOR address you advertise for channel connections is so widely
>
> shared through
> I suppose the use-case here is that the payee uses many TOR addresses with
> only one LN node.
Yes. Use different TOR addresses for things you want to keep separated.
Any TOR address you advertise for channel connections is so widely
shared through gossiping that you can in practice consider
> It is a public key hash, yes. But what I refer to is that the
> payee-determined route section, which starts from an introduction point,
> protects the payee from being located by the payer, but how did the payer
> contact the payee in the first place anyway? If it was by IP or non-.onion
Good morning Andy,
> > > giving new alternatives
> > >
> > > interactively is another option. I think using the same "introduction
> > >
> > > point" for all routes is best for privacy: otherwise the payer could
> > >
> > > determine the neighborhood of the payee.
> >
Andy Schroder
On 03/15/2018 08:31 PM, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
Good morning Corne,
routing. You could consider the start of the partial route as an
"introduction point"; it is selected by the payee(**). I'm not sure if
it is exactly equivalent to TOR's introduction points
Good morning Corne,
> routing. You could consider the start of the partial route as an
>
> "introduction point"; it is selected by the payee(**). I'm not sure if
>
> it is exactly equivalent to TOR's introduction points though.
It is almost equivalent I think.
>
> 2.
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thanks for the links. I've done a bit of reading, and this seems to be
the clearest explanation of what the Web Payments Working Group wants to
achieve:
https://www.w3.org/TR/webpayments-overview/
But maybe Christian can give better / more up-to-date info.
From what I can see,
Good morning Corne,
You mention URLs in your draft. This made me remember about the Web Payments
Working Group of W3C, https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ , of which Decker,
Christian of Blockstream is a member:
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=83744=1
My understanding is that
10 matches
Mail list logo
