ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-12-07 📝 Original message: Good morning LL, and ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-12-07
📝 Original message:
Good morning LL, and t-bast,
> > Basically, if my memory and understanding are accurate, in the above, it is the *PTLC-offerrer* which provides an adaptor signature.
> > That adaptor signature would be included in the `update_add_ptlc` message.
>
> Isn't it the case that all previous PTLC adaptor signatures need to be re-sent for each update_add_ptlc message because the signatures would no longer be valid once the commit tx changes. I think it's better to put it in `commitment_signed` if possible. This is what is done with pre-signed HTLC signatures at the moment anyway.
Agreed.
This is also avoided by fast-forwards, BTW, simply because fast-forwards delay the change of the commitment tx.
It is another reason to consider fast-forwards, too....
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
📝 Original message:
Good morning LL, and t-bast,
> > Basically, if my memory and understanding are accurate, in the above, it is the *PTLC-offerrer* which provides an adaptor signature.
> > That adaptor signature would be included in the `update_add_ptlc` message.
>
> Isn't it the case that all previous PTLC adaptor signatures need to be re-sent for each update_add_ptlc message because the signatures would no longer be valid once the commit tx changes. I think it's better to put it in `commitment_signed` if possible. This is what is done with pre-signed HTLC signatures at the moment anyway.
Agreed.
This is also avoided by fast-forwards, BTW, simply because fast-forwards delay the change of the commitment tx.
It is another reason to consider fast-forwards, too....
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj