t:* Monday, November 5, 2018 3:48:56 PM
> *To:* lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Rusty Russell
> *Subject:* Re: [Lightning-dev] RFC: simplifications and suggestions on
> open/accept limits.
>
>
> Op 1 nov. 2018 om 03:38 heeft Rusty Russell het
> volgende geschreven:
>
&
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 02:26:29AM +, Gert-Jaap Glasbergen wrote:
> > Otherwise, if you're happy accepting 652 satoshis, I don't see why you
> > wouldn't be happy accepting an off-chain balance of 652.003 satoshis;
> > you're no worse off, in any event.
> I wouldn’t be worse off when accepting
Hi Rusty,
> funding_satoshis
>
>
> c-lightning: must be >= 1000 (after reserve subtracted)
> Eclair: must be >= 10
> lnd: any
>
> SUGGESTION: At 253 satoshi/kSipa, and dust at 546, 1000 is too low to be
> sane (one output would always be dust). Eclair seems pessimistic
>
> On 7 Nov 2018, at 12:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> I don't think it quite makes sense either fwiw.
Glad it’s not just me :)
> What's enforcable on chain will vary though -- as fees rise, even if the
> network will still relay your 546 satoshi output, it may no longer be
> economical to claim
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 10:22:56PM +, Gert-Jaap Glasbergen wrote:
> > On 6 Nov 2018, at 14:10, Christian Decker
> > wrote:
> > It should be pointed out here that the dust rules actually prevent us
> > from creating an output that is smaller than the dust limit (546
> > satoshis on Bitcoin).
> On 6 Nov 2018, at 14:10, Christian Decker wrote:
>
> It should be pointed out here that the dust rules actually prevent us
> from creating an output that is smaller than the dust limit (546
> satoshis on Bitcoin). By the same logic we would be forced to treat the
> dust limit as our atomic
Gert-Jaap Glasbergen writes:
> Op 1 nov. 2018 om 03:38 heeft Rusty Russell
> mailto:ru...@rustcorp.com.au>> het volgende geschreven:
>> I believe this would render you inoperable in practice; fees are
>> frequently sub-satoshi, so you would fail everything. The entire
>> network would have to
Op 1 nov. 2018 om 03:38 heeft Rusty Russell
mailto:ru...@rustcorp.com.au>> het volgende geschreven:
I believe this would render you inoperable in practice; fees are
frequently sub-satoshi, so you would fail everything. The entire
network would have to drop millisatoshis, and the bitcoin
Gert-Jaap Glasbergen writes:
> As for htlc_minimum_msat I would not feel good about it being dropped.
> It is the only protection measure I saw in the standard against
> producing trimmed HTLCs. In my view the safe default is to set it above
> the dust limit to avoid it to get trimmed, and
