On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:07:16AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>
> On Tuesday, January 30th, 2024 at 4:38 AM, Peter Todd
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:12:07AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Todd proposes to sign multiple versions of
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:17:04AM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > 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
> 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.
>
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Tuesday, January 30th, 2024 at 4:38 AM, Peter Todd
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:12:07AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > Peter Todd proposes to sign multiple versions of offchain transactions at
> > varying feerates.
> > However, this proposal
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:12:07AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Peter Todd proposes to sign multiple versions of offchain transactions at
> varying feerates.
> However, this proposal has the issue that if you are not the counterparty
> paying for onchain fees (e.g. the original acceptor of the
Good morning Michael et al,
>
> I assume that a CTV based LN-Symmetry also has this drawback when compared to
> an APO based LN-Symmetry? In theory at least an APO based LN-Symmetry could
> change the fees in every channel update based on what the current market fee
> rate was at the time of
