waxwing on Nostr: First, my knowledge of this area is very sparse. Second, my response would depend on ...
First, my knowledge of this area is very sparse. Second, my response would depend on what you're asking: do you need to know about the issue this is trying to address? I could suggest bitcoin optech on pinning: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/transaction-pinning/ (optech is good as a library/reference on these technical concepts in bitcoin, generally; you can also follow links from there). Are you asking how exactly the rules in BIP431 will work? I don't know, but the basic concept is: we have this complicated bunch of rules to decide whether a transaction can be received into our mempool. These rules try to make sure a node can't get DOSed with infinite replacements; try to make it so that what gets into the mempool is "incentive compatible" with mining, i.e. that a rational miner would actually choose these transactions, and try to make it so that pinning as described above is either impossible .. or really hard? (not sure). This TRUC thing will be a new tx type which, if you opt into it, you can't have a chain of unconfirmed txs .. like tx1 is unconfirmed, then you add tx2 which spends from tx1, then tx3 spends from tx2 etc. etc.; TRUC would only allow tx2, not the ones after. That will make some versions of pinning not work, if I understand it correctly. Perhaps someone can expand on that last bit.
My original comment was along the lines of 'trying to understand and reason about whether a transaction can confirm is just getting more and more complex the more we understand it, which just illustrates that relying on penalty mechanisms like in current LN is really painful because of the game theory stuff'. not a criticism of this proposal, as I said, it does at least *try* to *restrict* how complex things can be, but it's arguable whether it achieves that goal, I think (because it's adding another way for txs to work .. but .. if everyone takes up this new ruleset for LN stuff then perhaps not? I don't know).
My original comment was along the lines of 'trying to understand and reason about whether a transaction can confirm is just getting more and more complex the more we understand it, which just illustrates that relying on penalty mechanisms like in current LN is really painful because of the game theory stuff'. not a criticism of this proposal, as I said, it does at least *try* to *restrict* how complex things can be, but it's arguable whether it achieves that goal, I think (because it's adding another way for txs to work .. but .. if everyone takes up this new ruleset for LN stuff then perhaps not? I don't know).