AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 17 Bitcoin

askrene: add APIs for "impressions" which are *relative* constraints.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

85/100 · Strong
askrene: add APIs for "impressions" which are *relative* constraints.

Normal constraints are clamps on min/max caused by failed payments:
min for the channels that succeeded, max for the channel which failed.

Impressions are the results of successful payments, which alter both
min and max (negatively in the forward direction, positively in the
reverse).

impression: n
1. An effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience.
2. A vague notion, remembrance, or belief.
3. A mark produced on a surface by pressure.

Unlike constraints, this is the result of our own effect on the network: they're related
but different enough to get their own API and terminology.

The name conveys both we made an impression on the channel, and that
the results are a bit vague (due to other changes since then, which we
won't know about).

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Changelog-Added: JSON-RPC: `askrene` layers now contain "impressions" representing the effects of successful payments we made through channels.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit adds a new 'impressions' feature to the askrene routing plugin in Core Lightning. It is a normal feature addition that lets the node remember how much capacity was used by successful payments, separate from existing 'constraints' that track failed payments. There is no indication this fixes a security bug or introduces a vulnerability.

Recommended action

No security action required; review as ordinary feature code.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 17/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 8/10
Evidence quality 4/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.