From johanth at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 07:58:24 2018 From: johanth at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Johan_Tor=C3=A5s_Halseth?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:58:24 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Base AMP In-Reply-To: <87k1l6nivn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87a7maf7jh.fsf@gmail.com> <2GH68_8IDCnzwQUhLoqLVrLZSXXP5jZYM5GLwEsV0CMVL_qvZQpliKI1ng0dmCPA-dlWnFRUuWJV7OQMsoFd-kwDzCGmk27H4dqYV1RPJhc=@protonmail.com> <20181116154527.25adgchhfsz7aa43@erisian.com.au> <87va4rp91k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87k1l6nivn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: This shouldn't be problem, as the invoice will already indicate that the node supports BaseAMP. If you have a reason to not reveal that you support BAMP for certain invoices, you'll just not specify it in the invoice, and act non-BAMPy when receiving payments to this payment hash. Of course, this will also be opt-in for both sides and won't affect existing nodes in any way. Cheers, Johan On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > Johan Tor?s Halseth writes: > > Seems like we can restrict the changes to BOLT11 by having the receiver > > assume NAMP for incoming payments < invoice_amount. (with some timeout of > > course, but that would need to be the case even when the sender is > > signalling NAMP). > > This would effectively become a probe for Base AMP; if you get a partial > payment error, it's because the recipient didn't support Base AMP. > > Seems cleaner to have a flag, both on BOLT11 and inside the onion. Then > it's explicitly opt-in for both sides and doesn't affect existing nodes > in any way. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: