Good morning Christian, and list,
> > > uncooperative membership change:
> > >
> > > - a subset of channel parties might want to cooperatively sign a
> > > channel splicing transaction to 'splice out' uncooperative parties
> >
> > I believe this is currently considered unsafe.
> > https://list
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 21:10, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > I'd prefer to not support P2SH-nested TR. P2SH wrapping was useful for
> > segwit
> > v0 for compatibility reasons. Most wallets/exchanges/services now support
> > sending
> > to native segwit a
Hi all,
In the draft for bip-tapscript (see [1], current version [2]), we
propose removing the per-block sigops limit for tapscript scripts, and
replacing it with a "every script gets a budget of sigops based on its
witness size (one per 50 WU)". Since signatures (plus pubkeys) take
more WU than t
ZmnSCPxj writes:
>> cooperative close:
>> * when all parties mutually agree to close the channel
>> * close the channel with a layer one transaction which finalizes the outputs
>> from the most recent channel output state
>> * should be optimized for privacy and low on-chain fees
>
> Of note is t
