From lf-lists at mattcorallo.com Wed Apr 28 02:16:30 2021 From: lf-lists at mattcorallo.com (Matt Corallo) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 22:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Lightning-dev] [RFC] Simplified (but less optimal) HTLC Negotiation In-Reply-To: <87o8dzbehn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87zgxocjkk.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87mttkco8p.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87o8dzbehn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: <693fd43d-3b31-9aed-970b-e35f7266580c@mattcorallo.com> On 4/27/21 17:32, Rusty Russell wrote: > OK, draft is up: > > https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/867 > > I have to actually implement it now (though the real win comes from > making it compulsory, but that's a fair way away). > > Notably, I added the requirement that update_fee messages be on their > own. This means there's no debate on the state of the channel when > this is being applied. I do have to admit *that* part I like :). If we don't do turns for splicing, I wonder if we can take the rules around splicing pausing other HTLC updates, make them generic for future use, and then also use them for update_fee in a simpler-to-make-compulsory change :). Matt