Good morning aj,
> > Basically, the intuition "small decrease in `htlc_max_msat` == small
> > decrease in payment volume" inherently assumes that HTLC sizes have a flat
> > distribution across all possible sizes.
>
>
> The intuition is really the other way around: if you want a stable,
>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 01:26:57AM +, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote:
> > > * you're providing a way of throttling payment traffic independent of
> > > fees -- since fees are competitive, they can have discontinuous effects
> > > where a small change to fee can cause a large change to
> I think this mitigation requires reliable access to the UTXO set
In this case, how about just setting nsequence to the value 1? UTXO may not
exist, but maybe that's ok since it means it cannot pin the commitment tx.
> If this concern is correct, I'm not sure we have a current good solution,
Hi Dustin,
>From my understanding, splice pinning is problematic for channel funds
safety. In the sense once you have a splice floating in network mempools
and your latest valid commitment transaction pre-signed fees isn't enough
to replace the splice, lack of confirmation might damage the claim
