<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] wrote</title><author_name>Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] (npub1as…wfqmx)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1aslmpzentw224n3s6yccru4dq2qdlx7rfudfnqevfck637cjt6esswfqmx</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2022-02-15&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;Hi Rusty,&#xA;&#xA;Nice to see the proposal in more concrete terms. Few questions:&#xA;&#xA;- The total proved utxo value (not counting any utxos which are spent)&#xA;&gt;   is multiplied by 10 to give the &#34;announcable_channel_capacity&#34; for that&#xA;&gt; node.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Could this work as a dynamic value too, similar to the minimum relay fee on&#xA;L1?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. `tlv_stream`: `channel_update_v2_tlvs`&#xA;&gt;&#xA;2. types:&#xA;&gt;     1. type: 4 (`capacity`)&#xA;&gt;     2. data:&#xA;&gt;         * [`tu64`:`satoshis`]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;What does capacity mean exactly outside the context of a real channel? Will&#xA;this be reduced to that maximum htlc amount that the nodes want to route,&#xA;to save as much of the announceable budget as possible?&#xA;&#xA;It is also the question of whether 10 x 10k channels should weigh as much&#xA;on the budget as a 1 x 100k channel. A spammer may be able to do more harm&#xA;with multiple smaller channels because there is more for the sender&#39;s&#xA;pathfinding algorithms to explore. Maybe it doesn&#39;t matter as long as there&#xA;is some mechanism to discourage spam.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;     1. type: 5 (`cost`)&#xA;&gt;     2. data:&#xA;&gt;        * [`u16`:`cltv_expiry_delta`]&#xA;&gt;        * [`u32`:`fee_proportional_millionths`]&#xA;&gt;        * [`tu32`:`fee_base_msat`]&#xA;&gt;     1. type: 6 (`min_msat`)&#xA;&gt;     2. data:&#xA;&gt;         * [`tu64`:`min_htlc_sats`]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - `channel_id_and_claimant` is a 31-bit per-node channel_id which can be&#xA;&gt;   used in onion_messages, and a one bit stolen for the `claim` flag.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;If you&#39;d increase the budget multiplier from 10 to 20, couldn&#39;t this be&#xA;simplified to always applying the cost to both nodes?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - A channel is not considered to exist until both peers have sent a&#xA;&gt;   channel_update_v2, at least one of which must set the `claim` flag.&#xA;&gt; - If a node sets `claim`, the capacity of the channel is subtracted from&#xA;&gt;   the remaining announcable_channel_capacity for that node (minimum&#xA;&gt;   10,000 sats).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Same question about magic value and whether it can be dynamic.&#xA;&#xA;Joost&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20220215/1c100bd3/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>