neil saitug

Having a uniform dust threshold for both peers seems strictly nicer imo than having it be arbitrarily selected per peer; in fact the newly proposed set of rules from @rustyrussell...

for maximum privacy, imo this should be reported as the 'absolute' value of the channel, rather than missing for the htlc. an absolute merely sets a ceiling for a probe,...

This now clashes with #672. I'd suggest to move to 30/31?

No worries! Thought I'd go ahead an make a PR for it though.

Here's a thought (also posted to ML): if you're in possession of a `channel_announcement` which indicates that it's a splice *and* you've seen a channel btw the same two peers...

`open_channel2` and `accept_channel2` are easily extensible via TLVs for authentication schemes. On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 03:47 Martin Habovštiak ***@***.***> wrote: > Would it make sense to add optional...

> I think this proposal is a great opportunity to provide a standard way of paying for liquidity (to help with the initial inbound liquidity problem). Maybe it's worth a...

> Should we recommend to verify finalized interactive transaction against client's full-node transaction standardness verifier. Hm. Ideally we would specify all of the "standardness" rules here so as not to...

Thanks for the feedback @t-bast! I've updated the draft with most of your comments. One big takeaway is that you'd like to see the `reserve amount` re-included in the protocol....

> should easily generalize to N party transaction building fun fact, CLN does this today w/ the current protocol when you do `multifundchannel` with multiple liquidity ad buys (done as...