Jim Posen <jim.po...@gmail.com> writes:
> Instead of leaving an extra output for CPFP, is it not sufficient to just
> sign all inputs with ANYONECANPAY and expect the sender to make an exact
> output for the fees input? It would require an extra tx assuming they don't
> already have a properly sized UTXO handy (which they may!), but I believe
> CPFP would require that as well. Am I missing something?

Yeah, that would change the txid which the HTLC txs rely on :(

> I'm a fan of the symmetric delays because it simplifies the game theory
> analysis, but I don't think the delays need to be the same for both
> participants (max of `to_self_delay` for both sides), just that the delay
> is applied equally regardless of who publishes the commitment tx. Like your
> `to_self_delay` can be what I specify and vice versa, what's the reason for
> taking the max?

If you don't take the max, you're back into the Game Theory.  Your delay
is short, mine is long, so I want you to drop to chain please.

Also, there's a fairness argument: if you want me to suffer a long
delay, you should too.

Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Reply via email to