📅 Original date posted:2018-02-12
📝 Original message:
Jim Posen <jim.posen at gmail.com> writes:
> If using two hashes to deliver the payment while still getting a proof, I'm
> not sure what that provides above just sending regular lightning payments
> over multiple routes with one hash. Firstly, if there is a second hash, it
> would presumably be the same for all routes, making them linkable again,
> which AMP tries to solve. And secondly, the receiver has no incentive to
> claim any of the HTLCs before all of them are locked in, because in that
> case they are releasing the transaction receipt before fully being paid.
Arguably the second concern is not really an issue, if you allow partial
claims you'll end up in a whole lot of trouble. It should always be the
case that the payment as whole is atomic, i.e., either the entirety of
the payment goes through or none of it, independently of whether it was
a singlepath or a multipath payment. This is actually one of the really
nice features that was enforced using the simple "just reuse the
hash"-mechanism, you always had to wait for the complete payment or
you'd risk losing part of it.
Christian Decker [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wt…gtuyn
2023-06-09 12:49:01
in reply to nevent1q…akm8
Author Public Key
npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuynPublished at
2023-06-09 12:49:01Event JSON
{
"id": "44543e6fa3b7cd3ffa5102011f9162bebe8910bd4b84d810554c121269e55e4e",
"pubkey": "72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057",
"created_at": 1686314941,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"51bc92b7fa9a7d9c09bb73c2362ca09a737a241a77a68cd95503c148136969eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6c652af4298a4237836529d13fdd75fae5a8df401d4855c65037814b425ac05b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0866a9dfe968ace2a1cf22ff20e534684828184e3a538212dddae2abbb41465f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-02-12\n📝 Original message:\nJim Posen \u003cjim.posen at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e If using two hashes to deliver the payment while still getting a proof, I'm\n\u003e not sure what that provides above just sending regular lightning payments\n\u003e over multiple routes with one hash. Firstly, if there is a second hash, it\n\u003e would presumably be the same for all routes, making them linkable again,\n\u003e which AMP tries to solve. And secondly, the receiver has no incentive to\n\u003e claim any of the HTLCs before all of them are locked in, because in that\n\u003e case they are releasing the transaction receipt before fully being paid.\n\nArguably the second concern is not really an issue, if you allow partial\nclaims you'll end up in a whole lot of trouble. It should always be the\ncase that the payment as whole is atomic, i.e., either the entirety of\nthe payment goes through or none of it, independently of whether it was\na singlepath or a multipath payment. This is actually one of the really\nnice features that was enforced using the simple \"just reuse the\nhash\"-mechanism, you always had to wait for the complete payment or\nyou'd risk losing part of it.",
"sig": "883c7a008e268c6dcbd0d0ec3078002c1ae96939a11f15c52168f774592fc677300453407c3bbc5b074b50279ae70a4384e689cf4721e89d29232d85cbf72be6"
}