PolyD_ on Nostr: From @Reardencode on X, "Update on LNHANCE vs APO for LN-Symmetry(Eltoo): Thanks ...
From @Reardencode on X,
"Update on LNHANCE vs APO for LN-Symmetry(Eltoo):
Thanks @4moonsettler for pointing this out and sending me to do more research.
As noted by @theinstagibbs, using CTV(ish) in LN-Symmetry can eliminate round-trips from parts of the resulting payment protocol, but this has further implications!
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359
Up to today, I've been saying that LNHANCE costs 8vBytes more than APO for LN-Symmetry force closes, but because the protocol uses CTVish in its resolution scripts, it actually ends up being 8vB smaller to do LN-Symmetry with LNHANCE than with APO.
Update transactions are 8vB larger (+1 32-byte hash), but resolution transactions are 16vB smaller (-1 64-byte signature).
Of course if we had CTV+APO that would be even another 8vB smaller, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that for LN-Symmetry purposes LNHANCE is a suitable substitute for APO.
cc @murchandamus"
"Update on LNHANCE vs APO for LN-Symmetry(Eltoo):
Thanks @4moonsettler for pointing this out and sending me to do more research.
As noted by @theinstagibbs, using CTV(ish) in LN-Symmetry can eliminate round-trips from parts of the resulting payment protocol, but this has further implications!
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359
Up to today, I've been saying that LNHANCE costs 8vBytes more than APO for LN-Symmetry force closes, but because the protocol uses CTVish in its resolution scripts, it actually ends up being 8vB smaller to do LN-Symmetry with LNHANCE than with APO.
Update transactions are 8vB larger (+1 32-byte hash), but resolution transactions are 16vB smaller (-1 64-byte signature).
Of course if we had CTV+APO that would be even another 8vB smaller, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that for LN-Symmetry purposes LNHANCE is a suitable substitute for APO.
cc @murchandamus"