> I should note that under Decker-Russell-Osuntokun the expectation is that > both counterparties hold the same offchain transactions (hence why it is > sometimes called "LN-symmetry"). > However, there are two ways to get around this: > > 1. Split the fee between them in some "fair" way. > Definition of "fair" wen? > 2. Create an artificial asymmetry: flip a bit of `nSequence` for the > update+state txes of one counterparty, and have each side provide signatures > for the tx held by its counterparty (as in Poon-Dryja). > This lets you force that the party that holds a particular update+state tx is > the one that pays fees.
No, wait, #2 does not actually work as stated. Decker-Russell-Osuntokun uses `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` meaning the `nSequence` is not committed in the signature and can be malleated. Further, in order for update transactions to be able to replace one another, the amount output of the update transaction needs to be the same value as the input of the update transaction --- meaning cannot deduct the fee from the channel, at least for the update tx. This forces the update transaction to be paid for by bringing in an external UTXO owned by whoever constructed the update transaction (== whoever started the closing). Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
