Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-29 📝 Original message: For the low low cost of 3 ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-11-29
📝 Original message:
For the low low cost of 3 witness bytes, I think the simplification of
analysis/separation of concerns is worth it, though I agree it is
probably not strictly required.
On 11/26/18 3:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
>> Hmm, are we willing to consider CLTV sufficient? In case you have two
>> HTLCs, one of medium-small value that has a low CLTV and one of high
>> value that has a higher CLTV, you could potentially use the soon-CLTV to
>> delay the commitment transaction somewhat further if you broadcast it
>> right as the sooner HTLC expires.
>
> I think you haven't got the commitment tx onchain by the time the HTLC
> expires, you're already in trouble.
>
> But since there's no script length difference, it *is* simpler to
> prepend `1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP` to the start of each script.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>
📝 Original message:
For the low low cost of 3 witness bytes, I think the simplification of
analysis/separation of concerns is worth it, though I agree it is
probably not strictly required.
On 11/26/18 3:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
>> Hmm, are we willing to consider CLTV sufficient? In case you have two
>> HTLCs, one of medium-small value that has a low CLTV and one of high
>> value that has a higher CLTV, you could potentially use the soon-CLTV to
>> delay the commitment transaction somewhat further if you broadcast it
>> right as the sooner HTLC expires.
>
> I think you haven't got the commitment tx onchain by the time the HTLC
> expires, you're already in trouble.
>
> But since there's no script length difference, it *is* simpler to
> prepend `1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP` to the start of each script.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>