|
Title: Atomic Multi-Path? Post by: DooMAD on February 07, 2018, 06:43:11 PM Just when I think I'm almost up to speed on Lightning, someone goes and proposes a platform on top of Lightning (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-February/000993.html). Never a dull moment in the cryptoverse, heh. Atomic Multi-Path payments, or AMP for short, sounds like it will be more efficient, more user-friendly and provide greater privacy if it works as advertised. And they appear to throw in the bonus of supporting cross-chain transactions too. So how excited should I be while it still appears to be in the concept phase? Is it one of those "if it sounds too good to be true... etc" deals? Has anyone identified any pitfalls or shortcomings yet? Or is it simply too early to tell?
Title: Re: Atomic Multi-Path? Post by: achow101 on February 07, 2018, 07:14:29 PM So how excited should I be while it still appears to be in the concept phase? Is it one of those "if it sounds too good to be true... etc" deals? You should be fairly excited. The proposal comes from Laolu, one of the primary architects of the Lightning Network and main developer of LND. While perhaps the proposal as it was exactly written in the email won't happen, I'm sure that something very similar to it will be created and implemented.Has anyone identified any pitfalls or shortcomings yet? Or is it simply too early to tell? There is active discussion about this on the mailing list (I haven't really been following), and it is still in the concept phase so expect the proposal to change and the issues worked out over time. Title: Re: Atomic Multi-Path? Post by: RNC on February 09, 2018, 12:33:26 PM So how excited should I be while it still appears to be in the concept phase? Is it one of those "if it sounds too good to be true... etc" deals? You should be fairly excited. The proposal comes from Laolu, one of the primary architects of the Lightning Network and main developer of LND. While perhaps the proposal as it was exactly written in the email won't happen, I'm sure that something very similar to it will be created and implemented.Has anyone identified any pitfalls or shortcomings yet? Or is it simply too early to tell? There is active discussion about this on the mailing list (I haven't really been following), and it is still in the concept phase so expect the proposal to change and the issues worked out over time. I would like to disagree with you but I found in the past that the "Ban" button comes in to play so best not to say anything that might upset the moderator. Title: Re: Atomic Multi-Path? Post by: achow101 on February 09, 2018, 03:58:53 PM I would like to disagree with you but I found in the past that the "Ban" button comes in to play so best not to say anything Feel free to disagree. I'm fine with having a discussion. But its not okay when the discussion turns from actually talking about a topic constructively to trolling, mudslinging, and flaming.that might upset the moderator. Title: Re: Atomic Multi-Path? Post by: Spendulus on February 09, 2018, 06:51:18 PM So how excited should I be while it still appears to be in the concept phase? Is it one of those "if it sounds too good to be true... etc" deals? You should be fairly excited. The proposal comes from Laolu, one of the primary architects of the Lightning Network and main developer of LND. While perhaps the proposal as it was exactly written in the email won't happen, I'm sure that something very similar to it will be created and implemented.Has anyone identified any pitfalls or shortcomings yet? Or is it simply too early to tell? There is active discussion about this on the mailing list (I haven't really been following), and it is still in the concept phase so expect the proposal to change and the issues worked out over time. I would like to disagree with you but I found in the past that the "Ban" button comes in to play so best not to say anything that might upset the moderator. we repurpose some unused space in the onion per-hop payload of the onion blob to signal our protocol (and deliver some protocol-specific data), then use additive secret sharing to ensure that the receiver can't pull the payment until they have enough shares to reconstruct the original pre-image. |