Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-04-24 📝 Original message: > > But Joost pointed out ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-04-24
📝 Original message:
>
> But Joost pointed out that you need to know the node_id of the next node
> though: this isn't quite true, since if the node_id is wrong the spec
> says you should send an `update_fail_malformed_htlc` with failure code
> invalid_onion_hmac, which node N turns into its own failure message.
> Perhaps it should convert it to `unknown_next_peer` instead? This isn't
> a common error on the modern network; I think our onion implementations
> have been rock solid.
>
Isn't this what I am suggesting here?
https://twitter.com/joostjgr/status/1385150318959341569
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210424/583bf0c4/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:
>
> But Joost pointed out that you need to know the node_id of the next node
> though: this isn't quite true, since if the node_id is wrong the spec
> says you should send an `update_fail_malformed_htlc` with failure code
> invalid_onion_hmac, which node N turns into its own failure message.
> Perhaps it should convert it to `unknown_next_peer` instead? This isn't
> a common error on the modern network; I think our onion implementations
> have been rock solid.
>
Isn't this what I am suggesting here?
https://twitter.com/joostjgr/status/1385150318959341569
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210424/583bf0c4/attachment-0001.html>;