Lloyd Fournier writes:
> Hey Rusty,
>
> Thoughts on each point below.
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:29, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm now leaning *against* this method.
>>
>> 1. It removes the ability to update a channel without access to the node's
>>secret key. At the moment the node
On 4/27/21 17:32, Rusty Russell wrote:
OK, draft is up:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/867
I have to actually implement it now (though the real win comes from
making it compulsory, but that's a fair way away).
Notably, I added the requirement that
On 4/27/21 01:04, Rusty Russell wrote:
Matt Corallo writes:
On Apr 24, 2021, at 01:56, Rusty Russell wrote:
Matt Corallo writes:
I promise it’s much less work than it sounds like, and avoids having to debug
these things based on logs, which is a huge pain :). Definitely less work than
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 09:36, Lloyd Fournier wrote:
> I wonder if it is even necessary to bump the generation until a funding
> tx is confirmed -- I can't think of a good reason why you would want to
> open two channels to the same node at the same time (why not put all your
> funds into the
Hey Rusty,
Thoughts on each point below.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:29, Rusty Russell wrote:
> OK, I'm now leaning *against* this method.
>
> 1. It removes the ability to update a channel without access to the node's
>secret key. At the moment the node secret key is only needed for
>
OK, draft is up:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/867
I have to actually implement it now (though the real win comes from
making it compulsory, but that's a fair way away).
Notably, I added the requirement that update_fee messages be on their
own. This means
