Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
BOLT 4: rename to avoid the term "blinding" unless we're actually doi…
…ng blinding We are handed an ephemeral key (E_i) to derive a shared secret, which derives both the blinding tweak for the onion, *and* the key to decrypt the encrypted_recipient_data. But we call it "blinding", which is confusing! How about we call it "path_key"? 1. update_add_htlc_tlv's "blinding_point.blinding" -> "blinded_path.path_key" 2. payload's "current_blinding_point" -> "current_path_key" 3. blinded_path's "blinding" -> "first_path_key". 4. encrypted_data_tlv's "next_blinding_override.blinding" -> "next_path_key_override.path_key" This sweep found other changes: 1. Writer of the TLV `payload`: simply refer here to Route Blinding requirements which says how to uset the `blinded_path` if we have one (and gets it right on the two ways to use current_blinding_point). 2. Refer concretely to `blinded_path` (a type) rather than "blinded route" (a concept). 3. Use the term `encrypted_recipient_data` everywhere for consistency, and `encrypted_data_tlv` once it's decrypted. 4. Note explictly that you can't use the "next_path_key_override" if the prior node doesn't support route blinding. 5. Header "Blinding Ephemeral Keys" -> "Blinding Ephemeral Onion Keys" to avoid confusion with blinded paths! 6. When using `reply_path` for onion messages, simply refer to the Route Blinding requirements. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
- Loading branch information