Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-26 📝 Original message: Matt Corallo <lf-lists at ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-11-26
📝 Original message:
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:
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.