rich1.0npub19helcfnqgk2jrwzjex2aflq6jwfc8zd9uzzkwlgwhve7lykv23mq5zkvn4https://nostr.ae/npub19helcfnqgk2jrwzjex2aflq6jwfc8zd9uzzkwlgwhve7lykv23mq5zkvn4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2018-02-06 📝 Original message: Hi ZmnSCPxj, > This is excellent work! Thanks! > I think, a `globalfeatures` odd bit could be used for this. As it is > end-ot-end, `localfeatures` is not appropriate. Yep, it would need to be a global feature bit. In the case that we're sending to a destination which isn't publicly advertised, then perhaps an extension to BOLT-11 could be made to signal receiver support. > I believe, currently, fees have not this super-linear component Yep they don't. Arguably, we should also have a component that scales according to the proposed CLTV value of the outgoing HTLC. At Scaling Bitcoin Stanford, Aviv Zohar gave a talked titled "How to Charge Lightning" where the authors analyzed the possible evolution of fees on the network (and also suggested adding this super-linear component to extend the lifetime of channels). However, the talk itself focused on a very simple "mega super duper hub" topology. Towards the end he alluded to a forthcoming paper that had more comprehensive analysis of more complex topologies. I look forward to the publication of their finalized work. > Indeed, the existence of per-hop fees (`fee_base_msat`) means, splitting > the payment over multiple flows will be, very likely, more expensive, > compared to using a single flow. Well it's still to be seen how the fee structure on mainnet emerges once the network is still fully bootstrapped. AFAIK, most running on mainnet atm are using the default fee schedules for their respective implementations. For example, the default fee_base_msat for lnd is 1000 msat (1 satoshi). > I believe the `realm` byte is intended for this. The realm byte is meant to signal "forward this to the dogecoin channel". ATM, we just default to 0 as "Bitcoin". However, the byte itself only really need significance between the sender and the intermediate node. So there isn't necessarily pressure to have a globally synchronized set of realm bytes. > Thus, you can route over nodes that are unaware of AMP, and only provide > an AMP realm byte to the destination node, who, is able to reconstruct this > your AMP data as per your algorithm. Yes, the intermediate nodes don't need to be aware of the end-to-end protocol. For the final hop, there are actually 53 free bytes (before one needs to signal the existence of EOBs): * 1 byte realm * 8 bytes next addr (all zeroes to signal final dest) * 32 bytes hmac (also all zeroes for the final dest) * 12 bytes padding So any combo of these bytes can be used to signal more advanced protocols to the final destination. A correction from the prior email description: > We can further modify our usage of the per-hop payloads to send > (H(BP), s_i) to consume most of the EOB sent from sender to receiver. This should actually be (H(s_0 || s_1 || ...), s_i). So we still allow them to check this finger print to see if they have all the final shares, but don't allow them to preemptively pull all the payments. -- Laolu On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:12 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote: > Good morning Laolu, > > This is excellent work! > > Some minor comments... > > > (Atomic Multi-path Payments). It can be experimented with on Lightning > *today* with the addition of a new feature bit to gate this new > feature. The beauty of the scheme is that it requires no fundamental > changes > to the protocol as is now, as the negotiation is strictly *end-to-end* > between sender and receiver. > > > I think, a `globalfeatures` odd bit could be used for this. As it is > end-ot-end, `localfeatures` is not appropriate. > > - Potential fee savings for larger payments, contingent on there being a > super-linear component to routed fees. It's possible that with > modifications to the fee schedule, it's actually *cheaper* to send > payments over multiple flows rather than one giant flow. > > > I believe, currently, fees have not this super-linear component. Indeed, > the existence of per-hop fees (`fee_base_msat`) means, splitting the > payment over multiple flows will be, very likely, more expensive, compared > to using a single flow. Tiny roundoffs in computing the proportional fees > (`fee_proportional_millionths`) may make smaller flows give a slight fee > advantage, but I think the multiplication of per-hop fees will dominate. > > > - Using smaller payments increases the set of possible paths a partial > payment could have taken, which reduces the effectiveness of static > analysis techniques involving channel capacities and the plaintext > values being forwarded. > > > Strongly agree! > > > In order to include the three tuple within the per-hop payload for the > final > destination, we repurpose the _first_ byte of the un-used padding bytes in > the payload to signal version 0x01 of the AMP protocol (note this is a PoC > outline, we would need to standardize signalling of these 12 bytes to > support other protocols). > > > I believe the `realm` byte is intended for this. Intermediate nodes do > not need to understand realm bytes that are understood by other nodes in > the route, including the realm bytes understood by the final destination, > as intermediate nodes cannot, indeed, read the hop data of other nodes. > Thus, you can route over nodes that are unaware of AMP, and only provide an > AMP realm byte to the destination node, who, is able to reconstruct this > your AMP data as per your algorithm. > > Indeed, the `realm` byte controls the interpretation of the rest of the > 65-byte packet. If you define, instead, a separate `realm` that is > understood by the destination node, you can redefine the entire 64 bytes of > the final hop data as you wish. > > If we support AMP only at final payees, we can completely redefine the 64 > bytes in the final hop data for the new AMP `realm`, and not consume the > next hop (which would reduce route length by 1). > > (If we want to support multiple routes converging to an intermediate node, > then continue routing to a different final node after routes have merged > (i.e. A->B->C->D, and A->E->C->D, with the payment being merged by C, who > forwards the combination to D), then we need to follow the current hop data > format, but I think supporting AMP at final payees is actually enough... > AMP at intermediate nodes might not be used often enough by senders for it > to matter, as taking advantage of that seems more complex than just asking > your routing algo to provide you multiple routes to a destination, which > you are probably already doing) > > ---- > > Overall, good work I think. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180207/3e9cf18e/attachment.html>