BOLT 12: clarify that offer_amount must be greater than zero#1316
Merged
t-bast merged 1 commit intolightning:masterfrom Mar 11, 2026
Merged
Conversation
t-bast
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2026
Collaborator
t-bast
left a comment
t-bast
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK 8605772, this is obvious and I think it's a bit spammy to explicitly spell it out, but why not.
@rustyrussell WDYT?
22 tasks
Contributor
Author
I agree, but I think if we have this in the spec will be obvious what to do, for instance ldk was accepting it and causing some parsing crash with cln IIRC |
rustyrussell
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2026
Contributor
Author
|
Will create a test vector for this as Rusty suggested! |
4 tasks
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/rust-lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2026
Per the spec clarification in lightning/bolts#1316: - Writers MUST set offer_amount greater than zero when present - Readers MUST NOT respond to offers where offer_amount is zero Reject amount_msats(0) in the builder with InvalidAmount, and reject parsed offers with amount=0 (with or without currency) during TLV deserialization. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
Author
|
Here are two test vectors for {
"description": "Invalid: zero offer_amount",
"valid": false,
"bolt12": "lno1pqqq5qqkyyp4he0fg7pqje62jmnq78cr0ashv4q06qql58tyd9rhp3t2wuyugtq",
"field info": "offer_amount is 0",
"fields": [
{
"type": 8,
"length": 0,
"hex": ""
},
{
"type": 10,
"length": 0,
"hex": ""
},
{
"type": 22,
"length": 33,
"hex": "035be5e9478209674a96e60f1f037f6176540fd001fa1d64694770c56a7709c42c"
}
]
},
{
"description": "Invalid: zero offer_amount with currency",
"valid": false,
"bolt12": "lno1qcp4256ypqqq5qqkyyp4he0fg7pqje62jmnq78cr0ashv4q06qql58tyd9rhp3t2wuyugtq",
"field info": "offer_amount is 0, offer_currency is USD",
"fields": [
{
"type": 6,
"length": 3,
"hex": "555344"
},
{
"type": 8,
"length": 0,
"hex": ""
},
{
"type": 10,
"length": 0,
"hex": ""
},
{
"type": 22,
"length": 33,
"hex": "035be5e9478209674a96e60f1f037f6176540fd001fa1d64694770c56a7709c42c"
}
]
}Notes:
Generated with LDK and verified roundtrip (bech32 NoChecksum decodes back to the expected TLV bytes). |
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/rust-lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2026
Per the spec clarification in lightning/bolts#1316: - Writers MUST set offer_amount greater than zero when present - Readers MUST NOT respond to offers where offer_amount is zero Reject amount_msats(0) in the builder with InvalidAmount, and reject parsed offers with amount=0 (with or without currency) during TLV deserialization. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
vincenzopalazzo
added a commit
to vincenzopalazzo/rust-lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 9, 2026
Per the spec clarification in lightning/bolts#1316: - Writers MUST set offer_amount greater than zero when present - Readers MUST NOT respond to offers where offer_amount is zero Reject amount_msats(0) in the builder with InvalidAmount, and reject parsed offers with amount=0 (with or without currency) during TLV deserialization. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add explicit requirements that: - Writers MUST set offer_amount greater than zero when present - Readers MUST NOT respond to offers where offer_amount is zero This addresses ambiguity about whether offer_amount=0 is valid. Since omitting offer_amount indicates no minimum is required, a zero value when present would be semantically incorrect. Fixes lightning#1314
vincenzopalazzo
force-pushed
the
clarify-offer-amount-non-zero
branch
from
8605772 to
c092554
Compare
t-bast
added a commit
to ACINQ/eclair
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2026
This doesn't make any sense, the field should be omitted if any amount is acceptable: setting it to `0` is confusing. See lightning/bolts#1316
t-bast
approved these changes
Mar 10, 2026
Collaborator
t-bast
left a comment
t-bast
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK c092554, added to eclair in ACINQ/eclair#3265.
Contributor
Author
|
Updated also the ldk one with the test vector, so I think we are ready to go? :-) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add explicit requirements that:
This addresses ambiguity about whether offer_amount=0 is valid. Since omitting offer_amount indicates no minimum is required, a zero value when present would be semantically incorrect.
Fixes #1314