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 Lightningemail@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev