Re: [Lightning-dev] Improving the initial gossip sync

Hi, On 5 February 2018 at 14:02, Christian Decker wrote: > Hi everyone > > The feature bit is even, meaning that it is required from the peer, > since we extend the `init` message itself, and a peer that does not > support this feature would be unable to parse any

Re: [Lightning-dev] An Idea to Improve Connectivity of the Graph

I'd also like to point out that the way we do state invalidations in Lightning is not really suited for multi-party negotiations beyond 2 parties. The number of potential reactions to a party cheating grows exponentially in the number of parties in the contract, which is the reason the Channel

Re: [Lightning-dev] Manual channel funding

Hi Alex, not sure what the context of your question. It doesn't appear to be protocol related, but rather an issue with the interface that the implementations expose. If that is the case, I'd suggest filing an issue with the respective implementation. Cheers, Christian Alex P

[Lightning-dev] Improving the initial gossip sync

Hi everyone When we started drafting the specification we decided to postpone the topology syncronization mechanism until we have a better picture of the kind of loads that are to be expected in the network, e.g., churn and update rate, and instead implement a trivial gossip protocol to

[Lightning-dev] Manual channel funding

Hello! At the moment there is no option to choose outputs to fund channel manually. Moreover, there is no way to fund channel with "all available funds". That's weird, I set up a channel and tried to use "all I ave", and got is a transaction on blockchain with the output for 980 SAT: