Which brings us back to the initial proposal that just signals the awareness of a temporary underpayment with the single "more is coming"-bit.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:49 PM Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > ZmnSCPxj <[email protected]> writes: > > But what if 2 of those paths fail? > > It would be better to merge them into a single payment along the > expensive 4th path. > > However, the remaining succeeding path has already given `numpaths`=3. > > > > Using `numpaths` overcommits to what you will do in the future, and is > unnecessary anyway. > > The payee is interested in the total value, not the details of the split. > > Excellent point. > > Thanks, > Rusty. > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
