đ
Original date posted:2015-09-24
đ Original message:
Hi Rusty,
> 1) Close now has an second ACK stage, which means you know the close ack
> has been received.
Argh, I already have trouble understanding the rationale behind all
the existing closing flows and states :-s Would it be possible to
publish an updated version of the svg ? aj, any chance you could do
the same with your 'flat' version ?
> 3) HTLC rejection (eg. bad route, insufficient fees) added.
How about the 'commit tx too big' case ? will that just be an error ?
> As a secondary effect, 32 bits places [an upper bound of 0.04 BTC]
> (currently about $10USD) on each HTLC. That's more than enough to cover
> the micropayment uses of lightning, yet if you lose all your money due
> to a horrible bug in the early days, I can buy you a beer and count us
> about even[1]. And we can change the protocol later if it becomes
> overly limiting.
Such a low ceiling bothers me a little bit, because it kind of states
that the micropayment use case is the primary target. Is it ? To me,
scalability and speed are the most interesting properties of
lightning. I would have preferred a higher (1 BTC ?) limit, but I
understand this can be changed. Regarding the risk of bugs, you can't
loose more than the channel capacity so that's another parameter we
can play with I guess.
Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre [ARCHIVE] /
npub1yzâŚy4pdt
2023-06-09 12:44:39
in reply to nevent1qâŚ5m3h
Author Public Key
npub1yz88535e0ydqye9q9x8l5cz9d3g6ervfjgyk5xm88zvktmxvstlsuy4pdtPublished at
2023-06-09 12:44:39Event JSON
{
"id": "83efd0a235d3b9d16fb55e1ae8e61a3728fc12bf52349f0f6456ed430f627ed6",
"pubkey": "208e7a4699791a0264a0298ffa60456c51ac8d8992096a1b67389965eccc82ff",
"created_at": 1686314679,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9128208f979ba16b9ae0be51d665e61e4d39f4748bd35992d09bb44edfaa05bc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5e6ea3b608b08dfb9863039e723524315a75721d34cbd754b1e5e760fb26a5f0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2015-09-24\nđ Original message:\nHi Rusty,\n\n\u003e 1) Close now has an second ACK stage, which means you know the close ack\n\u003e has been received.\nArgh, I already have trouble understanding the rationale behind all\nthe existing closing flows and states :-s Would it be possible to\npublish an updated version of the svg ? aj, any chance you could do\nthe same with your 'flat' version ?\n\n\u003e 3) HTLC rejection (eg. bad route, insufficient fees) added.\nHow about the 'commit tx too big' case ? will that just be an error ?\n\n\u003e As a secondary effect, 32 bits places [an upper bound of 0.04 BTC]\n\u003e (currently about $10USD) on each HTLC. That's more than enough to cover\n\u003e the micropayment uses of lightning, yet if you lose all your money due\n\u003e to a horrible bug in the early days, I can buy you a beer and count us\n\u003e about even[1]. And we can change the protocol later if it becomes\n\u003e overly limiting.\nSuch a low ceiling bothers me a little bit, because it kind of states\nthat the micropayment use case is the primary target. Is it ? To me,\nscalability and speed are the most interesting properties of\nlightning. I would have preferred a higher (1 BTC ?) limit, but I\nunderstand this can be changed. Regarding the risk of bugs, you can't\nloose more than the channel capacity so that's another parameter we\ncan play with I guess.\n\nCheers,\n\nPierre",
"sig": "18296c0b863c397d05afcb6c693a5fb1b2ea3d576da87529e10300bf5f59436a9ec83d041b3f53e176e7d599f42d1fe98f5154029f1adfdf26320e8e62ca651b"
}