📅 Original date posted:2021-05-04
📝 Original message:
Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> On 4/27/21 17:32, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> OK, draft is up:
>>
>> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/867
>>
>> I have to actually implement it now (though the real win comes from
>> making it compulsory, but that's a fair way away).
>>
>> Notably, I added the requirement that update_fee messages be on their
>> own. This means there's no debate on the state of the channel when
>> this is being applied.
>
> I do have to admit *that* part I like :).
>
> If we don't do turns for splicing, I wonder if we can take the rules around splicing pausing other HTLC updates, make
> them generic for future use, and then also use them for update_fee in a simpler-to-make-compulsory change :).
Yes, it is similar to the close requirement, except that requires all
HTLCs be absent.
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 13:02:26
in reply to nevent1q…zt29
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 13:02:26Event JSON
{
"id": "19e1a25fe42f52f1022c5ed4d506e153abb9dc2a593d35bf52a151d312bb840f",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315746,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"08c02262617d235de90610422cefca6f9c9d4f6c8fafd611ead5fb5261af7946",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-05-04\n📝 Original message:\nMatt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e On 4/27/21 17:32, Rusty Russell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e OK, draft is up:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/867\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I have to actually implement it now (though the real win comes from\n\u003e\u003e making it compulsory, but that's a fair way away).\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Notably, I added the requirement that update_fee messages be on their\n\u003e\u003e own. This means there's no debate on the state of the channel when\n\u003e\u003e this is being applied.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do have to admit *that* part I like :).\n\u003e\n\u003e If we don't do turns for splicing, I wonder if we can take the rules around splicing pausing other HTLC updates, make \n\u003e them generic for future use, and then also use them for update_fee in a simpler-to-make-compulsory change :).\n\nYes, it is similar to the close requirement, except that requires all\nHTLCs be absent.\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "9339b2e777a8368cd6fa9c2a5f0f87906178c3d87edfd80eb8f1e6f872eaa05e5deba21cb1f4e117aa13186f03058b60e9f39f47c1efcea7be0a844cfea2f71f"
}