<div dir="ltr">Any reason not to include _all_ (up to a limit) incoming channels with sufficient capacity?<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Johan</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:12 AM Rusty Russell &lt;<a href="mailto:rusty@blockstream.com">rusty@blockstream.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
<br>
        I&#39;m considering a change to c-lightning, where `invoice` would<br>
automatically append an &#39;r&#39; field for a channel which has sufficient<br>
*incoming* capacity for the amount (using a weighted probability across<br>
our peers).<br>
<br>
         This isn&#39;t quite what &#39;r&#39; was for, but it would be a useful<br>
hint for payment routing and also potentially for establishing an<br>
initial channel.  This is an issue for the Blockstream Store which<br>
deliberately doesn&#39;t advertize an address any more to avoid<br>
centralization.<br>
<br>
Thoughts welcome!<br>
Rusty.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lightning-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>