rich1.0Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] (npub1e4…jxmcu)https://yabu.me/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcunjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-07-01 📝 Original message: Thanks! On 6/29/21 01:34, Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi all! > > John Carvalo recently pointed out that not every implementation > accepts zero-conf channels, but they are useful. Roasbeef also recently > noted that they're not spec'd. > > How do you all do it? Here's a strawman proposal: > > 1. Assign a new feature bit "I accept zeroconf channels". > 2. If both negotiate this, you can send update_add_htlc (etc) *before* > funding_locked without the peer getting upset. Does it make sense to negotiate this per-direction in the channel init message(s)? There's a pretty different threat model between someone spending a dual-funded or push_msat balance vs someone spending a classic channel-funding balance. > 3. Nodes are advised *not* to forward HTLCs from an unconfirmed channel > unless they have explicit reason to trust that node (they can still > send *out* that channel, because that's not their problem!). > > It's a pretty simple change, TBH (this zeroconf feature would also > create a new set of channel_types, altering that PR). > > I can draft something this week? > > Thanks! > Rusty. > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >