Richard [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-01-14 📝 Original message: Complete n00b question ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-01-14
📝 Original message:
Complete n00b question here: if one side of the channel have 100% of the
funds, can the last message give that user complete controll over the
channel (to close it "unilateral" without any interaction from the other
side?
And that way change the fee size when that part want's to close the channel?
Or give the other side the complete controll over a channel if the funds on
one side is less than what is currently needed to close a channel?
Richard
søn. 14. jan. 2018 kl. 13:32 skrev Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:30:28AM +0900, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > Hey everybody.
> >
> > Say that the last time we updated channel state, we assumed 40
> satoshi/byte
> > was enough to get confirmed, then I leave the channel for a few weeks,
> come
> > back to find my partner fell off the face of the internet.
> >
> > I perform unilateral close with my output on CSV timelock... but it turns
> > out there’s 500 MB of txes at around 100 satoshi/byte and lets say my
> > transaction will never get confirmed at 40 sat/byte.
> >
> > What course of action can I take?
> >
> > 1. to_local output can't be redeemed until the commitment transaction
> > (which will "never confirm") is confirmed + the CSV timeout.
> > 2. to_remote output probably won't be redeemed as the other person is
> > offline.
> >
> > The only remedy I can think of is hope that the other person comes back
> > online and CPFPs your to_remote output for you... but at that point it
> > would be better for them to just amicably close with normal outputs... so
> > basically your only hope is wait for other person to come online.
> >
> > Since CSV will cause script verification to fail, a CPFP transaction will
> > not be propagated.
> > If we can't CPFP, the CSV timer won't start (it starts once the CSV
> > containing output is confirmed).
> >
> > Seems like a problem.
> >
> > Anyone have any solutions?
>
> While not ideal, you can use out-of-band fee payment mechanisms such as
> https://confirmtx.com and https://pushtx.btc.com to get the transaction
> mined
> without an on-blockchain payment. For that matter, you could use a
> Lightning
> transaction to pay for that service more cheaply than on-chain payments
> those
> existing accelerators currently use.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180114/b202f355/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Complete n00b question here: if one side of the channel have 100% of the
funds, can the last message give that user complete controll over the
channel (to close it "unilateral" without any interaction from the other
side?
And that way change the fee size when that part want's to close the channel?
Or give the other side the complete controll over a channel if the funds on
one side is less than what is currently needed to close a channel?
Richard
søn. 14. jan. 2018 kl. 13:32 skrev Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:30:28AM +0900, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > Hey everybody.
> >
> > Say that the last time we updated channel state, we assumed 40
> satoshi/byte
> > was enough to get confirmed, then I leave the channel for a few weeks,
> come
> > back to find my partner fell off the face of the internet.
> >
> > I perform unilateral close with my output on CSV timelock... but it turns
> > out there’s 500 MB of txes at around 100 satoshi/byte and lets say my
> > transaction will never get confirmed at 40 sat/byte.
> >
> > What course of action can I take?
> >
> > 1. to_local output can't be redeemed until the commitment transaction
> > (which will "never confirm") is confirmed + the CSV timeout.
> > 2. to_remote output probably won't be redeemed as the other person is
> > offline.
> >
> > The only remedy I can think of is hope that the other person comes back
> > online and CPFPs your to_remote output for you... but at that point it
> > would be better for them to just amicably close with normal outputs... so
> > basically your only hope is wait for other person to come online.
> >
> > Since CSV will cause script verification to fail, a CPFP transaction will
> > not be propagated.
> > If we can't CPFP, the CSV timer won't start (it starts once the CSV
> > containing output is confirmed).
> >
> > Seems like a problem.
> >
> > Anyone have any solutions?
>
> While not ideal, you can use out-of-band fee payment mechanisms such as
> https://confirmtx.com and https://pushtx.btc.com to get the transaction
> mined
> without an on-blockchain payment. For that matter, you could use a
> Lightning
> transaction to pay for that service more cheaply than on-chain payments
> those
> existing accelerators currently use.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180114/b202f355/attachment.html>;