Good morning Laolu,

>> I worry about doing away with initiator distinction
>
> Can you re-phrase this sentence? I'm having trouble parsing it, thanks.

The initiator of an action is the node which performs the first step in an 
action.

For instance, when opening a channel, the node which initiates the channel open 
is the initiator.  Even in a dual-funding channel open, we should distinguish 
the initiator.

What I want to preserve (as for current channel opening) is that the initiator 
of an action should be the one to pay any costs or fees to that action.

For instance, when opening a channel, the channel opener is the one who pays 
for all onchain fees related to opening and closing the channel, as the opening 
node is the initiator of the action.

Similarly, for channel splicing, I think it would be wiser to have the 
initiator of the splice be the one, to pay for any onchain fees related to 
splicing (and any backoff/failure path if some backoff is needed), even if the 
other side then also decides to splice in/out some funds together with the 
splice.

To my mind, this is wiser as it reduces the surface of potential attacks in 
case of a bad design or implementation of dual-fund-opening and splicing; to 
engage in the attack, one must be willing to shoulder all the onchain fees, 
which hopefully should somewhat deter all but the most egregious or lopsided of 
attacks.

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

Reply via email to