📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15
📝 Original message:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:
> >
> > > So how would things work out with a combination of both of the
> > > proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as
> > > in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for
> > > failed payment attempts too. Failed payment attempts after a
> > > successful probe should be extremely rate, so doesn't this fix the ux
> > > issue with upfront fees?
> >
> > Why couldn't a malicious routing node (or group of colluding routing
> > nodes) succeed the probe and then fail the payment in order to collect
> > the failed payment fee?
>
> Good observation!
>
> I propose substantially the same thing here:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-September/003256.html
I totally missed that thread, but it is indeed the same thing including the
notion that it may make upfront payments palatable! Contains some great
additional ideas too.
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211015/342fb320/attachment.html>;
Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] /
npub1as…wfqmx
2023-06-09 13:04:17
in reply to nevent1q…p307
Author Public Key
npub1aslmpzentw224n3s6yccru4dq2qdlx7rfudfnqevfck637cjt6esswfqmxPublished at
2023-06-09 13:04:17Event JSON
{
"id": "7a0bd3f6862856ded51b131b6faa23ab8e60b6fff8a7f4ff3d5c96fd94efa54b",
"pubkey": "ec3fb08b335b94aace30d13181f2ad0280df9bc34f1a99832c4e2da8fb125eb3",
"created_at": 1686315857,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"809a3860a9be6151917d6028fe8491d7b657a48871b7822de87656532e9b33be",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3e4791729496ee01e81ce5c4b37e77c39116ab4d5765b30655a31050dda27370",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-10-15\n📝 Original message:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Joost Jager wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e So how would things work out with a combination of both of the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e proposals described in this mail? First we make probing free (free as\n\u003e \u003e \u003e in no liquidity locked up) and then we'll require senders to pay for\n\u003e \u003e \u003e failed payment attempts too. Failed payment attempts after a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e successful probe should be extremely rate, so doesn't this fix the ux\n\u003e \u003e \u003e issue with upfront fees?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Why couldn't a malicious routing node (or group of colluding routing\n\u003e \u003e nodes) succeed the probe and then fail the payment in order to collect\n\u003e \u003e the failed payment fee?\n\u003e\n\u003e Good observation!\n\u003e\n\u003e I propose substantially the same thing here:\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-September/003256.html\n\n\nI totally missed that thread, but it is indeed the same thing including the\nnotion that it may make upfront payments palatable! Contains some great\nadditional ideas too.\n\nJoost\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211015/342fb320/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "529be9d3f213cda41ebb9b535d040927cac4b77e634769d18a43cc66d690ae524a473627dba7cd2cf74da38ab2283ab3b45c15bb39e3bd97003cdde39d6ce491"
}