Good morning Rusty, > I tried to simplify RBF as much as possible; it adds a lot of > complexity :( In particular, below we have one side pay the fees (and > thus responsible for RBF), in violation of the summit agreement, > and simplified the fee amount as much as reasonable.
This (initiator-pays) was proposed on the summit, by my memory. At the time, I was going to propose also that only the splice-initiator would then be allowed to add splice-ins and/or splice-outs, since the splice-initiator "owns" the splice (as it pays all the fees). And then, I would also propose that once splice-initiator indicates satisfaction with splice ins and outs, the two switch sides (but the fees proposed by the first splice-initiator remain deducted from the splice-initiator) and the other party has an opportunity to add its own splice-ins/outs, for which it would pay for. However, RBF adds a whole new dimension... It's certainly much easier to reason about a single payer of the fees. > > RBF it implicitly requires multiple (exclusive) splices at once. This > will all require a great deal of testing... Would it be useful to define a dual-funding RBF protocol first, so we have practice for splice RBF? Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
