Hi tbast,
FWIW, we haven't had _too_ many issues with the additional constraints
anchor channels bring. Initially users had to deal w/ the UTXO reserve, but
then sort of accepted the trade-off for the safety that actually being able
to dynamically bump the fee on your commitment transaction and
Hi Johan,
I haven't really been able to find a precise technical explanation of the
"utxo teleport" scheme, but after thinking about your example use cases a
bit, I don't think the scheme is actually sound. Consider that the scheme
attempts to target transmitting "ownership" to a UTXO. However,
Hi Thomas,
This is a very interesting proposal that elegantly solves the problem, with
> however a very significant size increase. I can see two ways to keep the
> size small:
> - Each node just adds its hmac in a naive way, without deleting any part
> of the message to relay. You seem to have
