Jim Posen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-20 📝 Original message: Instead of leaving an ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-20
📝 Original message:
Instead of leaving an extra output for CPFP, is it not sufficient to just
sign all inputs with ANYONECANPAY and expect the sender to make an exact
output for the fees input? It would require an extra tx assuming they don't
already have a properly sized UTXO handy (which they may!), but I believe
CPFP would require that as well. Am I missing something?
I'm a fan of the symmetric delays because it simplifies the game theory
analysis, but I don't think the delays need to be the same for both
participants (max of `to_self_delay` for both sides), just that the delay
is applied equally regardless of who publishes the commitment tx. Like your
`to_self_delay` can be what I specify and vice versa, what's the reason for
taking the max?
-jimpo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181020/2771eeef/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Instead of leaving an extra output for CPFP, is it not sufficient to just
sign all inputs with ANYONECANPAY and expect the sender to make an exact
output for the fees input? It would require an extra tx assuming they don't
already have a properly sized UTXO handy (which they may!), but I believe
CPFP would require that as well. Am I missing something?
I'm a fan of the symmetric delays because it simplifies the game theory
analysis, but I don't think the delays need to be the same for both
participants (max of `to_self_delay` for both sides), just that the delay
is applied equally regardless of who publishes the commitment tx. Like your
`to_self_delay` can be what I specify and vice versa, what's the reason for
taking the max?
-jimpo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20181020/2771eeef/attachment.html>;