Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj! On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@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 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
