Fabrice Drouin [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-01-04 📝 Original message: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-01-04
📝 Original message:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 04:43, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > - in set reconciliation schemes: we could reconcile [channel id |
> > timestamp | checksum] first
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand how set reconciliation works, but --- if timestamp is changed while checksum is not, then it would still be seen as a set difference and still require further communication rounds to discover that the channel parameters have not actually changed.
>
> Perhaps it is better to reconcile [channel_id | checksum] instead, and if there is a different set of channel parameters, share the set difference and sort out which timestamp is later at that point.
Ah yes of course, the `timestamp` should not be included.
Cheers,
Fabrice
📝 Original message:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 04:43, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > - in set reconciliation schemes: we could reconcile [channel id |
> > timestamp | checksum] first
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand how set reconciliation works, but --- if timestamp is changed while checksum is not, then it would still be seen as a set difference and still require further communication rounds to discover that the channel parameters have not actually changed.
>
> Perhaps it is better to reconcile [channel_id | checksum] instead, and if there is a different set of channel parameters, share the set difference and sort out which timestamp is later at that point.
Ah yes of course, the `timestamp` should not be included.
Cheers,
Fabrice