Yeah, that is true, it would only give you the atomicity, not the
decorrelation. I don’t see how you could get all the same properties using only
one hash though. I guess the sender has no incentive to claim any of the
payments before all of them have arrived, but you get no guarantee that partial
payments cannot be made. Seems hard to do without introducing new primitives.
- Johan
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:44, Jim Posen <jim.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Johan Torås Halseth < joha...@gmail.com
[joha...@gmail.com] > wrote:
An obvious way to make this compatible with proof-of-payment would be to
require two hashes to claim the HTLC: the presage from the invoice payment hash
(as today) + the new hash introduced here. This would give the sender a receipt
after only one of the HTLCs was claimed. Would require changes to the scripts
of course.
With Schnorr/EC operations this could probably be made more elegant, as
mentioned.
- Johan
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 18:21, Rusty Russell < ru...@rustcorp.com.au
[ru...@rustcorp.com.au] > wrote:
Olaoluwa Osuntokun < laol...@gmail.com [laol...@gmail.com] > writes:
> Hi Y'all,
>
> A common question I've seen concerning Lightning is: "I have five $2
> channels, is it possible for me to *atomically* send $6 to fulfill a
> payment?". The answer to this question is "yes", provided that the receiver
This is awesome! I'm kicking myself for not proposing it :)
Unfortunately, your proposal defines a way to make multipath donations,
not multipath payments :(
In other words, you've lost proof of payment, which IMHO is critical.
Fortunately, this can be fairly trivially fixed when we go to scriptless
scripts or other equivalent decorrelation mechanism, when I think this
mechanism becomes extremely powerful.
> - Potential fee savings for larger payments, contingent on there being a
> super-linear component to routed fees. It's possible that with
> modifications to the fee schedule, it's actually *cheaper* to send
> payments over multiple flows rather than one giant flow.
This is a stretch. I'd stick with the increased reliability/privacy
arguments which are overwhelmingly compelling IMHO.
If I have any important feedback on deeper reading (and after a sccond
coffee), I'll send a separate email.
Thanks!
Rusty.
______________________________ _________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists. linuxfoundation.org
[Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org]
https://lists.linuxfoundation. org/mailman/listinfo/ lightning-dev
[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev]
______________________________ _________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists. linuxfoundation.org
[Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org]
https://lists.linuxfoundation. org/mailman/listinfo/ lightning-dev
[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev]
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
