> Mainly limitations of our descriptor language, TBH.
I don't follow...so it's a size issue? Or wanting to avoid "repeated"
fields?
> I thought about restarting the revocation sequence, but it seems like that
> only saves a tiny amount since we only store log(N) entries
Yeah that makes sense,
Hi tomokio,
This is so dope! We've long discussed creating canned protocol transcripts
for
other implementations to assert their responses again, and I think this is a
great first step towards that.
> Our proposal:
> Every implementation has compile option which enable output key
information
>
> However personally I do not really see the need to create multiple
channels
> to a single peer, or increase the capacity with a specific peer (via
splice
> or dual-funding). As Christian says in the other mail, this
consideration,
> is that it becomes less a network and more of some channels to
> This seems at odds with the goal of "if the remote party force closes,
then
> I get my funds back immediately without requiring knowledge of any secret
> data"
Scratch that: the static back ups just need to include this CSV value!
-- Laolu
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:29 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun
Olaoluwa Osuntokun writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> I'm a big fan in general of most of this! Amongst many other things, it'll:
> simplify the whole static channel backup + recovery workflow, and avoid all
> the fee related headaches we've run into over the past few months.
I certainly hope so!
>> -
Hi Rusty,
I'm a big fan in general of most of this! Amongst many other things, it'll:
simplify the whole static channel backup + recovery workflow, and avoid all
the fee related headaches we've run into over the past few months.
> - HTLC-timeout and HTLC-success txs sigs are
>
Op 1 nov. 2018 om 03:38 heeft Rusty Russell
mailto:ru...@rustcorp.com.au>> het volgende geschreven:
I believe this would render you inoperable in practice; fees are
frequently sub-satoshi, so you would fail everything. The entire
network would have to drop millisatoshis, and the bitcoin
I think it's true that most of my proposal can be achieved by writing
such things in human-readable form in the description field. Mostly,
the only thing my proposal does is to put things into a machine-
readable form; this may aid in automated processing and maybe a better
UI experience.
Maybe
Good morning CJP,
On Monday, November 5, 2018 4:04 PM, CJP wrote:
> Rusty,
>
> In your proposal, I guess it is more or less widely known that Bob is
> providing this forwarding service. Wouldn't Bob risk being excluded
> from the side of the network with the more harsh regulatory conditions,
>
