Re: [Lightning-dev] [RFC] Lightning gossip alternative

ZmnSCPxj writes: > Good morning rusty, > > If we are going to switch to a new gossip version, should we prepare now for > published channels that are backed by channel factories? This is already true with the new proposal: channels don't have to be "real". It's possible to raise the required ra

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

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

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

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 real

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

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* precommitted

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

-- @JeremyRubin On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 1:39 AM Peter Todd wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:38:27PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote: > > > As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types > > of pinning attack. > > > > I think pinning is "fo

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

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* precommitted

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

Good morning DA, > Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow > invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip > and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee > that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as there is no consensus