Matt Corallo writes:
>> Allowing only 1 a day, ended up with 18% of channels hitting the spam
>> limit. We cannot fit that many channel differences inside a set!
>>
>> Perhaps Alex should post his more detailed results, but it's pretty
>> clear that we can't stay in sync with this many differenc
On 4/21/22 7:20 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Matt Corallo writes:
Sure, if you’re rejecting a large % of channel updates in total
you’re gonna end up hitting degenerate cases, but we can consider
tuning the sync frequency if that becomes an issue.
Let's be clear: it's a problem.
Allowing only
On 4/22/22 9:15 AM, Alex Myers wrote:
Hi Matt,
Appreciate your responses. Hope you'll bear with me as I'm a bit new to this.
Instead of trying to make sure everyone’s gossip acceptance matches
exactly, which as you point
it seems like a quagmire, why not (a) do a sync on startup and
Hi Matt,
Appreciate your responses. Hope you'll bear with me as I'm a bit new to this.
> Instead of trying to make sure everyone’s gossip acceptance matches exactly,
> which as you point it seems like a quagmire, why not (a) do a sync on startup
> and (b) do syncs of the *new* things.
I'm not
Good morning list,
I will describe here a vulnerability found in older versions of some
lightning implementations of anchor outputs. As most implementations
have not yet released support for anchor outputs, they should verify
that they are not impacted by this type of vulnerability while they
impl
