Andy Schroder
On 03/19/2018 09:59 AM, Corné Plooy wrote:
It is a public key hash, yes. But what I refer to is that the payee-determined
route section, which starts from an introduction point, protects the payee from
being located by the payer, but how did the payer contact the payee in the
Andy Schroder
On 03/19/2018 08:06 AM, Corné Plooy wrote:
What about enforcing a maximum payment amount that can be refunded?
Can this help make the amount not a requirement? This way the payment
amount will still be open to the payer, but it will have a constraint.
I see no use case anymore
Good morning Corne,
> > I suppose the use-case here is that the payee uses many TOR addresses with
> > only one LN node.
>
> Yes. Use different TOR addresses for things you want to keep separated.
>
> Any TOR address you advertise for channel connections is so widely
>
> shared through
> I suppose the use-case here is that the payee uses many TOR addresses with
> only one LN node.
Yes. Use different TOR addresses for things you want to keep separated.
Any TOR address you advertise for channel connections is so widely
shared through gossiping that you can in practice consider
Cool,
Since we're trying to clarify some of the things that may not be entirely
clear, there are a few other things it may be relevant to address or define at
the same time:
1. What's the intended direction of interpreting the conditions?
2. What's the result of the conflict if a
Good morning list,
It is possible to mean atomic in multiple meanings:
1. The payee is completely unable to claim any partial payments until all
partial payments arrive at the payee.
2. The payee is not incentivized to claim partial payments until all partial
payments arrive at the payee.
