From decker.christian at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 11:40:00 2018 From: decker.christian at gmail.com (Christian Decker) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:40:00 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP In-Reply-To: <87in0bfsuz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87k1l6nivn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87zhtuvznz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <_E9BzXjIxAU_qilMgT2Obfkvjc0gSMKzSBnvXp_Au4n-sJRVStA_f7C6BsCw2FHHiH6CfACfGTYG-DwUlOCHgBMM0tAspgpWbsswgQI6l14=@protonmail.com> <87zhtrh2gn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87in0bfsuz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: Which brings us back to the initial proposal that just signals the awareness of a temporary underpayment with the single "more is coming"-bit. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:49 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > ZmnSCPxj writes: > > But what if 2 of those paths fail? > > It would be better to merge them into a single payment along the > expensive 4th path. > > However, the remaining succeeding path has already given `numpaths`=3. > > > > Using `numpaths` overcommits to what you will do in the future, and is > unnecessary anyway. > > The payee is interested in the total value, not the details of the split. > > Excellent point. > > 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: