René Pickhardt writes:
> Dear Rusty,
>
> I am not getting this proposal (maybe I am lacking some technical basic
> understandings) however I decided to ask more questions in order to
> complete my onboarding process faster and hope this is fine.
>
> My problem starts with the fact that I can't
Dear Rusty,
I am not getting this proposal (maybe I am lacking some technical basic
understandings) however I decided to ask more questions in order to
complete my onboarding process faster and hope this is fine.
My problem starts with the fact that I can't find the term "lightning probe
Good morning Rene,
Not Rusty, but I shall spam the list as for my normal habit anyway.
>My problem starts with the fact that I can't find the term "lightning probe
>message" in the current BOLTs (actually the term probe only occures two
>times and these seem unrelated to what you are talking
Good morning Rusty,
> > > I apologize that this wasn't fleshed out before the summit, but I
> > > overestimated the power of Scriptless Scripts so had mentally deferred
> > > this.
> >
> > My understanding is that SS is as powerful as we thought, at least for some
> > of the applications we were
ZmnSCPxj writes:
>> I apologize that this wasn't fleshed out before the summit, but I
>> overestimated the power of Scriptless Scripts so had mentally deferred
>> this.
>
> My understanding is that SS *is* as powerful as we thought, at least for some
> of the applications we were hoping to use
Good morning Rusty,
No particular comment on static offer invoices, but instead various
bikeshedding.
>
> The format of the final-hop lightning onion would contain:
>
> [whatever-marker-we-need?][128-bit-`p`-field][[type,len,data]+]
I think a separate BOLT for the type,len,data would be
