{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpx","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpx","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-02-07\n📝 Original message:\nOlaoluwa Osuntokun \u003claolu32 at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e Hi Y'all,\n\u003e\n\u003e A common question I've seen concerning Lightning is: \"I have five $2\n\u003e channels, is it possible for me to *atomically* send $6 to fulfill a\n\u003e payment?\". The answer to this question is \"yes\", provided that the receiver\n\nThis is awesome!  I'm kicking myself for not proposing it :)\n\nUnfortunately, your proposal defines a way to make multipath donations,\nnot multipath payments :(\n\nIn other words, you've lost proof of payment, which IMHO is critical.\n\nFortunately, this can be fairly trivially fixed when we go to scriptless\nscripts or other equivalent decorrelation mechanism, when I think this\nmechanism becomes extremely powerful.\n\n\u003e   - Potential fee savings for larger payments, contingent on there being a\n\u003e     super-linear component to routed fees. It's possible that with\n\u003e     modifications to the fee schedule, it's actually *cheaper* to send\n\u003e     payments over multiple flows rather than one giant flow.\n\nThis is a stretch.  I'd stick with the increased reliability/privacy\narguments which are overwhelmingly compelling IMHO.\n\nIf I have any important feedback on deeper reading (and after a sccond\ncoffee), I'll send a separate email.\n\nThanks!\nRusty."}