From rusty at rustcorp.com.au Mon Jan 1 03:18:18 2018 From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:48:18 +1030 Subject: [Lightning-dev] General questions about channels In-Reply-To: <551A2EE3-C5ED-47C8-A4F7-2BDAE073A3D4@friedenbach.org> References: <5A360843.5060706@AndySchroder.com> <878tdzj2wb.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <5A432D1E.60902@AndySchroder.com> <5A433685.3050202@AndySchroder.com> <5A433D40.9020805@AndySchroder.com> <0mRpF6YNsI8VWWnlVJIKF1juOXp2EKBFap23S74mi2pljbPGcgnVAFh8kM__EUgzPpNgYBZW5CMP85vto0x1hdDvvksrWBYGTxvMCBtexg8=@protonmail.com> <551A2EE3-C5ED-47C8-A4F7-2BDAE073A3D4@friedenbach.org> Message-ID: <87d12ugtc5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mark Friedenbach writes: > I had always assumed the protocol limits were training wheels, and would be shocked and dismayed if that were not the case (and would immediately begin work on an alternative fork because such limits would make lightning useless for my intended applications). Mark, This is an unnecessarily aggressive sentence; we all need to take care not to let Bitcoin's mode of discussion leak into Lightning development. I've failed at this several times myself. If you have enough time to work on an alternative fork, I'd encourage you to contribute to the spec process :) Thanks, Rusty.