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
