Morning!
>
> For the latter case, CPFP would work and already exists.
> **Unless** you are doing something complicated and offchain-y and involves
> relative locktimes, of course.
>
>
The "usual" design I recommend for Vaults contains something that is like:
{ CSV CHECKSIG, CHECKSIG}
or
{ CSV
Good morning Jeremy,
> opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO.
>
> As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key
> required means you have to pre-plan suppose you're building a vault meant
> to distribute funds over many years, do you
opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO.
As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key
required means you have to pre-plan suppose you're building a vault
meant to distribute funds over many years, do you really want a *specific*
Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
> Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
>
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
> >
> > > > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by
> > > > getting an
> > > > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
> > >
> > > It's not an
Good morning Peter and Jeremy,
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
>
> > > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting
> > > an
> > > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
> >
> > It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 05:20:19PM +, darosior wrote:
> > Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting an
> > out-of-date version of a tx mined.
>
> It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date transaction, if
> you signed and broadcasted it in
> Necromancing might be a reasonable name for attacks that work by getting an
> out-of-date version of a tx mined.
It's not an "attack"? There is no such thing as an out-of-date transaction, if
you signed and broadcasted it in the first place. You can't rely on the fact
that
a replacement
