Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-21 📝 Original message: Johan Torås Halseth ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-11-21
📝 Original message:
Johan Torås Halseth <johanth at gmail.com> writes:
> Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver
> assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of
> course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is
> signalling NAMP).
This would effectively become a probe for Base AMP; if you get a partial
payment error, it's because the recipient didn't support Base AMP.
Seems cleaner to have a flag, both on BOLT11 and inside the onion. Then
it's explicitly opt-in for both sides and doesn't affect existing nodes
in any way.
Cheers,
Rusty.
📝 Original message:
Johan Torås Halseth <johanth at gmail.com> writes:
> Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver
> assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of
> course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is
> signalling NAMP).
This would effectively become a probe for Base AMP; if you get a partial
payment error, it's because the recipient didn't support Base AMP.
Seems cleaner to have a flag, both on BOLT11 and inside the onion. Then
it's explicitly opt-in for both sides and doesn't affect existing nodes
in any way.
Cheers,
Rusty.