Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] CPFP Carve-Out for Fee-Prediction Issues in Contracting Applications (eg Lightning)

2019-10-28 Thread David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:45:39AM +0100, Johan Torås Halseth wrote: > Relay cost is the obvious problem with just naively removing all limits. > Relaxing the current rules by allowing to add a child to each output as > long as it has a single unconfirmed parent would still only allow free > relay

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: node-Tor is now open source in clear (and modular)

2019-10-28 Thread Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
FYI, javascript implementation of the Tor protocol on server side and inside browsers Not related directly to bitcoin-dev but might be of some use one day to anonymize bitcoin apps (light wallets for example) Message transféré Sujet : node-Tor is now open source in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] CPFP Carve-Out for Fee-Prediction Issues in Contracting Applications (eg Lightning)

2019-10-28 Thread Johan Torås Halseth via bitcoin-dev
> > > I don’te see how? Let’s imagine Party A has two spendable outputs, now > they stuff the package size on one of their spendable outlets until it is > right at the limit, add one more on their other output (to meet the > Carve-Out), and now Party B can’t do anything. Matt: With the proposed

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] CPFP Carve-Out for Fee-Prediction Issues in Contracting Applications (eg Lightning)

2019-10-28 Thread Johan Torås Halseth via bitcoin-dev
It essentially changes the rule to always allow CPFP-ing the commitment as long as there is an output available without any descendants. It changes the commitment from "you always need at least, and exactly, one non-CSV output per party. " to "you always need at least one non-CSV output per party.