Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-02-11 📝 Original message: Hi ZmnSCPxj, Not quite ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-02-11
📝 Original message:
Hi ZmnSCPxj,

Not quite up-to-speed back into this, but, I believe an issue with using
> feerates rather than fixed fees is "what happens if a channel is forced
> onchain"?
>
> Suppose after C offers the HTLC to D, the C-D channel, for any reason, is
> forced onchain, and the blockchain is bloated and the transaction remains
> floating in mempools until very close to the timeout of C-D.
> C is now liable for a large time the payment is held, and because the C-D
> channel was dropped onchain, presumably any parameters of the HTLC
> (including penalties D owes to C) have gotten fixed at the time the channel
> was dropped onchain.
>

The simplicity of the fixed fee is that it bounds the amount of risk that C
> has in case its outgoing channel is dropped onchain.
>

The risk is bound in both cases. If you want you can cap the variable fee
at a level that isn't considered risky, but it will then not fully cover
the actual cost of the locked-up htlc. Also any anti-DoS fee could very
well turn out to be insignificant to the cost of closing and reopening a
channel with the state of the mempool these days.

Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210211/9a7280c9/attachment.html>;