📅 Original date posted:2022-02-19 📝 Original message:Thanks for the ...

Billy Tetrud [ARCHIVE] /

npub1xqc…cnns

2023-06-07 23:04:37

in reply to nevent1q…hz7r

📅 Original date posted:2022-02-19
📝 Original message:Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Billy,
>
> > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more
> dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
> >
> > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
> transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't
> free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee
> isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It
> still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty
> like that.
>
> Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you
> could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state
> transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of
> Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee
> from their main owned funds.
> The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by
> itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already
> knows fees exist and need to be paid.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220219/93018285/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnns

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 23:04:37

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "403735a45be00f9fb0485969dd4c5c09a046ab3f914d8813c0693c86d0974ece", "pubkey": "3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba", "created_at": 1686179077, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "5fe4c1ba6946d2f34766b22b464f89bbe95cc399bd5effb836c23d627bbd5700", "", "root" ], [ "e", "6e7588674846eac9a7457f4a7e86fca1b887cd75ea3fe3301648627ac3e24bb6", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-02-19\n📝 Original message:Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!\n\nOn Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Good morning Billy,\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \"fully\" punitive channels also make large value channels more\n\u003e dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra\n\u003e transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't\n\u003e free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee\n\u003e isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It\n\u003e still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty\n\u003e like that.\n\u003e\n\u003e Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you\n\u003e could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state\n\u003e transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of\n\u003e Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee\n\u003e from their main owned funds.\n\u003e The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by\n\u003e itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already\n\u003e knows fees exist and need to be paid.\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e ZmnSCPxj\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220219/93018285/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "cede67c0e6343133ae4efbe65a4ad9aa2621829421ccab95a32dfc1aab21f73a75a6d8d099709295a18c5d893bb8b1b9f4c236b63bc5003c92b4e2442a8e0464" }