📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08
📝 Original message:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Mats Jerratsch wrote:
> However, we have to decide whether we want this whole onion-routing to
> be one-time and one-directional or not.
I have sort of lost track of preferences regarding what is to be sent
through onion routing versus what's not...
Originally I had assumed that some out-of-band messaging would be
taking place (like an equivalent to a BIP70-style payment protocol).
Rather than a single QR code, I was expecting an interactive
wallet-to-wallet protocol while both sides are busy communicating with
the onion routing network for the actual payment route negotiation
stuff. When they ultimately find that no sufficiently cheap route
exists, then the wallets would opt to create a new payment channel in
some circumstances.
Once a path is found, the recipient would then communicate over the
wallet-to-wallet channel to pass over the fully-constructed onion
routing information. Sending that data back over the onion routing
network may not be necessary. Unfortunately this increases the
complexity of the payment side (wallet-to-wallet), but meanwhile makes
for less message passing in onion land, which could make the problem
easier to think about?
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vt…jsjpg
2023-06-09 12:45:21
in reply to nevent1q…a7h2
Author Public Key
npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgPublished at
2023-06-09 12:45:21Event JSON
{
"id": "e8b7885ae36176bfa5e15149cdfce3cba68316a06da45f675b0afd6b021b1d58",
"pubkey": "62ddcb547224b421822b62845fb1bbd77c838b924bd022814cfcbe25b7a07475",
"created_at": 1686314721,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"35c3660d96927f20bf015bd7ea4c5c8c4fd0b788eeb33ade931fcd58af52809d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8997ec02cd6fdcfee6caa42ff3d4d7905d78f97ebe96a1091ce0bb714e137e02",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b8a27d18150405cdfcd44c0dd8db860f5270312300248389bf57ce555c784528"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:\nOn Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Mats Jerratsch wrote:\n\u003e However, we have to decide whether we want this whole onion-routing to\n\u003e be one-time and one-directional or not.\n\nI have sort of lost track of preferences regarding what is to be sent\nthrough onion routing versus what's not...\n\nOriginally I had assumed that some out-of-band messaging would be\ntaking place (like an equivalent to a BIP70-style payment protocol).\nRather than a single QR code, I was expecting an interactive\nwallet-to-wallet protocol while both sides are busy communicating with\nthe onion routing network for the actual payment route negotiation\nstuff. When they ultimately find that no sufficiently cheap route\nexists, then the wallets would opt to create a new payment channel in\nsome circumstances.\n\nOnce a path is found, the recipient would then communicate over the\nwallet-to-wallet channel to pass over the fully-constructed onion\nrouting information. Sending that data back over the onion routing\nnetwork may not be necessary. Unfortunately this increases the\ncomplexity of the payment side (wallet-to-wallet), but meanwhile makes\nfor less message passing in onion land, which could make the problem\neasier to think about?\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507",
"sig": "11ce1503b8c3f86f176a614c7e64c5a77f1acec22401dc7556dc165a1bf338ccb53f71bb4601aa0ac334eabfebdfecedb73bba9389dcf4f65f7928a5b61416bb"
}