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)
This optional padding makes it very difficulty to deserialize
node_announcements into internal structs for storage and then
reconstruct the original node_announcement, plus are unused on the
network today and no known implementations construct
node_announcement messages with them.
The fee calculation in BOLT 7 appears to imply that proprtional
fees must be paid on the incoming amount, not the to_forward amount
This is inconsistent with what is actually implemented in the
field (which uses amount_to_forward) and also would make
pathfinding more complicated as the fee would depend on itself,
making calculation no longer simple.
This helps lite nodes a little, but also gives a way of advertising a
lesser capacity than implied onchain.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I was trying to compactly indicate that the considered alternative to
multiplier postfixes was just express everything in millisatoshi, but
it's just confusing, and anyway there are other notations we didn't use
so it seems like a weird thing to explain.
Reported-by: @cdecker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
a.k.a. landonmutch style, where requirements are explicit and bullet-pointed.
This also tightens requirements:
1. New requirement (previously implied) that writer use correct prefix.
2. Reader MUST rather than SHOULD fail malformed `amount`.
It also makes it clear that writer can omit the multiplier.
Fixes: #442
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
[ Note: in retrospect, adding this in the initial draft without its
own feature bit was a mistake. It was a premature optimization,
adds complexity and removes the ability to disable it if a problem
is found without disabling gossip_queries entirely. However, it
is already deployed as-is. --RR ]
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
