<div dir="ltr">Which brings us back to the initial proposal that just signals the awareness of a temporary underpayment with the single &quot;more is coming&quot;-bit.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:49 PM Rusty Russell &lt;<a href="mailto:rusty@rustcorp.com.au">rusty@rustcorp.com.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a href="mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com" target="_blank">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
&gt; But what if 2 of those paths fail?<br>
&gt; It would be better to merge them into a single payment along the expensive 4th path.<br>
&gt; However, the remaining succeeding path has already given `numpaths`=3.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Using `numpaths` overcommits to what you will do in the future, and is unnecessary anyway.<br>
&gt; The payee is interested in the total value, not the details of the split.<br>
<br>
Excellent point.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<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>