Author: Christian Decker 2018-03-04 22:18:56
Published on: 2018-03-04T22:18:56+00:00
In a conversation on the Lightning Network mailing list, Jim Posen suggested that pinging a channel for capacity could be a solution to prevent payment failures. Rusty Russell, however, disagreed, stating that it is premature optimization and could lead to privacy leaks. He suggested using fees as a signaling mechanism when capacity gets low. Two possible solutions were offered by Posen: making `temporary_channel_failure` return a `channel_update` with disabled flags if the request asks for capacity or implementing fast failure to reduce latency. Russell emphasized the need for analysis on reliable ways to mask the active capacity of a channel to prevent information leakage. Christian Decker agreed with Russell and warned against the potential privacy risks associated with pinging channels for capacity. He suggested relying on the feedback mechanism provided by adding channel_updates in the failure message instead.
Updated on: 2023-05-24T21:23:16.509580+00:00