-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 224
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
feat: prepare ptlc support #5627
Conversation
3482638
to
17d280f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks fine to me, maybe @elsirion has more thoughts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, just not sure if including the current logic is even worth it. Having the enum in place certainly is though. Should it maybe even be extensible for future proofing?
PaymentImage::Point(pk) => match SecretKey::from_slice(preimage) { | ||
Ok(sk) => sk.public_key(secp256k1::SECP256K1) == *pk, | ||
Err(..) => false, | ||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we just always make it return false as long as there is no real PTLC spec? Activating some new logic would be comparatively simple (no struct changes, just a new consensus version)
No description provided.