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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Capacity handling when only a single partner submits PFSCapacityUpdates #736

Open
karlb opened this issue Mar 3, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Capacity handling when only a single partner submits PFSCapacityUpdates #736

karlb opened this issue Mar 3, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels
Enhancement 🌟 New feature or request PFS 🚀 Related to the Pathfinding Service

Comments

@karlb
Copy link
Contributor

karlb commented Mar 3, 2020

We currently assumes that raiden clients either:

  • Use the PFS and submit PFSCapacityUpdates or
  • Only do direct transfers (or maybe use local routing)

However, it would be nice to allow non-mediators to not send PFSCapacityUpdates to increase privacy and avoid interactive signing (in the case of the light client).

Our current approach of calculating capacities when the information from both partners differs has the main goal of avoiding any incentives of mediators to lie. Can we keep that property while working in a sensible way for cases where one partner does not send PFSCapacityUpdates?

See also #735.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Enhancement 🌟 New feature or request PFS 🚀 Related to the Pathfinding Service
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@karlb