To replace it with
> TxB', one still has to pay to evict TxB, at roughly 1000/4=250 times the
> normal feerate.
>
> Sorry if I got the math wrong here, but at least trying to get the idea
> across.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:20 PM Eugene Siegel wrote:
>
>> Looking it
ined.
>
> (I don't know if that applies here, just noting the wrinkle)
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:37 AM Eugene Siegel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the ancestor bulking variant of pinning only matters if you are
>> trying to add a new descendant and c
Hi,
I think the ancestor bulking variant of pinning only matters if you are
trying to add a new descendant and can't due to the ancestor/descendant
limits. In this example, since all of the outputs are locked with `1
OP_CSV`, you can't add a descendant to the splice tx. The ancestor bulking
also
ential others. :-)
>
>
> I'll post something soon about how we could integrate Miniscript in
> Lightning.
> Original Message
> On Mar 10, 2022, 2:55 PM, Eugene Siegel < elzei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes I think bip342 should solve it. Maybe spli
Script branches
> in two tapleaves and having bip342 signature digest committing to the
> tapleaf_hash solves it.
>
> Antoine
>
> Le lun. 7 mars 2022 à 15:27, Eugene Siegel a écrit :
>
>> I'm not sure if this is known, but I'm pretty sure it's benign and so I
>> though
I'm not sure if this is known, but I'm pretty sure it's benign and so I
thought I'd share since I found it interesting and maybe someone else will
too. I'm not sure if this is already known either.
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#offered-htlc-outputs
Offered
Lnd counts dust + trimmed HTLCs towards max_accepted_htlcs. We definitely
shouldn't be counting dust towards that amount. I would have to think more
about the issue where it's not possible to lower the feerate though. That
seems like a spec issue?
___
the
> door to other
> kinds of attacks.
>
> This is the first issue that comes to mind, but there may be other
> drawbacks if we dig into
> this enough with an attacker's mindset.
>
> Bastien
>
> Le ven. 23 avr. 2021 à 17:58, Eugene Siegel a écrit :
>
>> I propose a s
I propose a simple mitigation to increase the capital requirement of
channel-jamming attacks. This would prevent an unsophisticated attacker
with low capital from jamming a target channel. It seems to me that this
is a *free* mitigation without any downsides (besides code-writing), so I'd
like to
