Olaoluwa Osuntokun [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-16 📝 Original message: I realized the other day ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-11-16
📝 Original message:
I realized the other day that the wumbo bit should also likely encompass
wumbo
payments. What good is a wumbo channel that doesn't also allow wumbo
payments?
Naturally if the bit is signalled globally, then this should also signal the
willingness of the node to forward larger payments up to their max_htlc
limit
within the channel_update for that link.

On a similar note, I was reviewing the newer-ish section of the spec
concerning
the optional max_htlc value. I noticed an inconsistency: it states the value
should be below the max capacity of the channel, but makes no reference to
the
current (pre wumbo) _max HTLC limit_. As a result, as it reads now, one may
interpret signalling of the optional field as eligibility to route wumbo
payments in a pre-wumbo channel world.

-- Laolu


On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:34 PM Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
> > Thus, I propose:
> >
> > * The local feature bit `option_i_wumbo_you_wumbo`, which indicates that
> the node is willing to wumbo with its counterparty in the connection.
> > * The global feature bit `option_anyone_can_wumbo`, which indicates that
> the node is willing to wumbo with any node.
>
> I think we need to name `option_anyone_can_wumbo` to `option_wumborama`?
>
> Otherwise, this looks excellent.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181115/99e29284/attachment-0001.html>;