From ueno at nayuta.co  Tue May  8 06:33:53 2018
From: ueno at nayuta.co (ueno at nayuta.co)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:33:53 +0900
Subject: [Lightning-dev] Receiving via unpublished channels
In-Reply-To: <dlos5CrIp5FlAeCooM5BX8CyHZ4FkoqlIXXsV1CG-LJ3EDzypAQA0yYeUBmCoXZbkb2y7jnWMCo43UDvnMQPc--GDm1jFd5sQAzGFmGLg3A=@protonmail.com>
References: <dlos5CrIp5FlAeCooM5BX8CyHZ4FkoqlIXXsV1CG-LJ3EDzypAQA0yYeUBmCoXZbkb2y7jnWMCo43UDvnMQPc--GDm1jFd5sQAzGFmGLg3A=@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <582f3de1-0ad3-5438-08e6-681295c44a54@nayuta.co>

Hi, ZmnSCPxj.

> I want to ask the other LN implementations (lnd, eclair, ucoin, lit) if we should consider standardizing this behavior (i.e. send `channel_update`
> after lockin  regardless of published/unpublished state).

ucoin/ptarmigan does not support `r` field yet(just decode and discards it).


Regards,
nayuta-ueno

(https://github.com/nayutaco/ptarmigan)

On 2018/04/27 8:35, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote:
> Good morning list,
> 
> While implementing support for `r` field in invoices, I stumbled upon some issues regarding *creating* invoices with `r` fields.
> 
> In order to receive via an unpublished channel, we need to know what onLightning fees the other side of that channel wants to charge.? We cannot use 
> our own onLightning fees because our fees apply if we were forwarding to the other side.
> 
> However, in case of an unpublished channel, we do not send channel_announcement, and in that case we do not send channel_update.? So the other side of 
> the channel never informs us of the onLightning fees they want to charge if we would receive funds by this channel.
> 
> An idea we want to consider is to simply send `channel_update` as soon as we lock in the channel: 
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/pull/1330#issuecomment-383931817
> 
> I want to ask the other LN implementations (lnd, eclair, ucoin, lit) if we should consider standardizing this behavior (i.e. send `channel_update` 
> after lockin? regardless of published/unpublished state).? It seems back-compatible: software which does not expect this behavior will simply drop the 
> `channel_update` (as they do not follow a `channel_announcement`).
> 
> In any case, what was the intended way to get the onLightning fee rates to put into invoice `r` fields for private routes?
> 
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>