Elias Rohrer

Might be worth giving CI a kick now that we fixed the `No space left on device` issue (for now) with #3916.

> I think we should wait for a reference implementation, indicating that this will actually be used in practice before merging this bLIP. But it's fine to keep the PR...

> True, but if there is an implementation (or potentially multiple) that are in-progress: the goal of merging early in draft is mainly when more than one implementations are in-progress...

> The tests could be cleaned up a bit more [#3725 (comment)](https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pull/3725#discussion_r2035775461). Excuse the delay here once more! Now rebased and addressed this remaining comment by pulling out some more...

> Feel free to squash, IMO Squashed without further changes.

Force-pushed with the following changes: ```diff diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs b/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs index bcae7690f..73c831884 100644 --- a/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs +++ b/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs @@ -4420,48 +4420,40 @@ mod tests { let act_three_with_init_b = fd_b.outbound_data.lock().unwrap().split_off(0); - assert!(!peer_a...

> @tnull , I called it `amount` at first ([#3063 (comment)](https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pull/3063#discussion_r1599060322)) but I agree with Matt that it might be confusing, given that amount of HTLC has diferent meaning. >...

> Naming is hard :). I'm a bit meh on `floor_amount` because it doesn't mention the unit being floor'd to, which I think substantially improves readability of callsites. So `floor_sats_amount`...

> I still need to finish adding some comments and responding to feedback, but I believe the tests are done and this should be mostly there so pushed up the...

> > > I still need to finish adding some comments and responding to feedback, but I believe the tests are done and this should be mostly there so pushed...