📅 Original date posted:2018-11-13
📝 Original message:
Pierre <pm+lists at acinq.fr> writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
>> The feature masks are split into local features (which only
>> affect the protocol between these two nodes) and global features
>> (which can affect HTLCs and are thus also advertised to other
>> nodes).
>
> I don't think that definition makes a lot of sense. For example I
> probably want to advertise the fact that my node supports
> option_data_loss_protect, which is a local feature. OTOH why would I
> *not* want to avertise a feature that I support? I struggle to see
> what is the point of making the distinction between local/global
> actually.
The theory was that local features concern direct peers, global features
concern others (thus *must* be advertized by gossip).
I *expected* local features to become ubiquitous over time, so by the
time an implementation decided "I don't even want to talk to nodes
without feature X" then most nodes would support feature X, so you could
simply connect and you're probably OK.
So the question becomes:
1. Do people want to pre-filter by local features?
2. If so, only some local features, or all of them?
If only some, then we make those ones global features. If all, then we
remove the local/global distinction altogether?
Thanks,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:52:38
in reply to nevent1q…jl93
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:52:38Event JSON
{
"id": "cda4efa0e3aebd1721bc7d8de5d9bf8523df563ad174b2a240b4e5ceef4216a2",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315158,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7e19675ce2d9059ad28b8c6d674e5062c9c3e08808be8a20aebc7b4c921800e3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2b7216eb67b5444fb2682570a7033e064890e15525cae12e0047357a6a0ab8c0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"208e7a4699791a0264a0298ffa60456c51ac8d8992096a1b67389965eccc82ff"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-11-13\n📝 Original message:\nPierre \u003cpm+lists at acinq.fr\u003e writes:\n\u003e Hi Rusty,\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The feature masks are split into local features (which only\n\u003e\u003e affect the protocol between these two nodes) and global features\n\u003e\u003e (which can affect HTLCs and are thus also advertised to other\n\u003e\u003e nodes).\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think that definition makes a lot of sense. For example I\n\u003e probably want to advertise the fact that my node supports\n\u003e option_data_loss_protect, which is a local feature. OTOH why would I\n\u003e *not* want to avertise a feature that I support? I struggle to see\n\u003e what is the point of making the distinction between local/global\n\u003e actually.\n\nThe theory was that local features concern direct peers, global features\nconcern others (thus *must* be advertized by gossip).\n\nI *expected* local features to become ubiquitous over time, so by the\ntime an implementation decided \"I don't even want to talk to nodes\nwithout feature X\" then most nodes would support feature X, so you could\nsimply connect and you're probably OK.\n\nSo the question becomes:\n\n1. Do people want to pre-filter by local features?\n2. If so, only some local features, or all of them?\n\nIf only some, then we make those ones global features. If all, then we\nremove the local/global distinction altogether?\n\nThanks,\nRusty.",
"sig": "18ddabc8c3d173cbd6fb64927ee6a5942358ddf0d5ef3cd0b4ecb190a10d4c26507bc46cd658be2327e62ee77e54235b2c49e749ca34bbc4f52b000c6303a762"
}