Because the errors are separate, if an intermediate node sees a
payment hash for relay and has several guesses as to the
destination of the payment, they can check their guesses by sending
HTLCs with the same payment hashes first and seeing the error sent
back.
By adding the htlc_msat that the final node received to
unknown_or_incorrect_payment_details, origin nodes can still
identify bad value-relaying peers.
This seems to be a cause of stuck HTLCs on the network: c-lightning has
done this for a while now (since 0.6.1).
[ Minor wording clarification merged --RR ]
Decided-at: Adelaide Summit 2018
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This commit documents the allowance of non-strict
forwarding, permitting forwarding nodes to select
between any available outgoing channel with the peer
that would otherwise be specified by the
short_channel_id in the onion packet.
It also includes recommendations for fee schedules
when using non-strict forwarding, either by using
a uniform fee schedule with a peer or only
considering like-policied channels, to ensure the
channel is truly equivalent in terms of fee revenue
for the forwarder.
Technically this change may result in channels_announcements only
coming from one end. However, because c-lightning already implements
announcement_signatures in this way, in practice this will improve
reliability of channel_announcements.
[ After much bikeshedding, wording rewritten but same effect -- RR ]
Closes#468Closes: #474
Although commitment numbers are explained in the
[glossary](00-introduction.md#glossary-and-terminology-guide),
it's helpful to re-iterate at the place that it's first used.
To 'fail a channel' is mentioned multiple places in this
BOLT without any mention or definition of what that means.
This adds a link to the relevant text in BOLT 05 in the
first place that we mention 'fail the channel'.
ref. http://noiseprotocol.org/noise.html#dh-functions
The order of arguments of DH function is the order of private key, public key.
Made the same order.
This order is reflected in the expressions of `ee`, `se`, `es`, `ss`.
'final' and 'endpoint' node don't make much sense out of
context of a payment (in the former case) or when referring to
a non-channel party node. this fixes this
The Initial Sync section is hard to parse, as is, because it's presented
without context. This adds a small clarifying statement, in particular
highlighting where the mode is triggered from (init message features)
and what in particular is being synced (gossip messages)
