Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Limit htlc_maximum_msat value based on announcement status #3030

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Sharmalm
Copy link
Contributor

This or solves #2984

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.37%. Comparing base (ac9a2c8) to head (8c5e087).
Report is 76 commits behind head on main.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3030      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.42%   90.37%   +0.94%     
==========================================
  Files         117      118       +1     
  Lines       96290   106036    +9746     
  Branches    96290   106036    +9746     
==========================================
+ Hits        86109    95829    +9720     
- Misses       7962     8032      +70     
+ Partials     2219     2175      -44     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

We shouldn't be changing the announced limit, because the announced limit is just reflective of what we can actually send. Instead, we need to change the in-flight limit that we send to our peer during channel opening.

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented May 21, 2024

We shouldn't be changing the announced limit, because the announced limit is just reflective of what we can actually send. Instead, we need to change the in-flight limit that we send to our peer during channel opening.

Huh, I'm confused: in respect to #2851 we discussed that these are two separate issues, i.e., #2851 and #2984?

If we don't change the announced limit, LDK will actually prefer non-LDK nodes when routing as we use the announced limit for our anti_probing_penalty, no?

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

Right, okay, so the current patch here removes the 90% limit for private channels, which I guess is fine (but I think we always ignore anyway when we're the other side?), but doesn't change anything re: the anti-probing penalty. For that we need to change the public announced limit, which maybe was the intention of this PR?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants