On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:17:04AM +, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > I should note that under Decker-Russell-Osuntokun the expectation is that
> > both counterparties hold the same offchain transactions (hence why it is
> > sometimes called "LN-symmetry").
> > However, there are two
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:12:07AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Peter Todd proposes to sign multiple versions of offchain transactions at
> varying feerates.
> However, this proposal has the issue that if you are not the counterparty
> paying for onchain fees (e.g. the original acceptor of the
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Tuesday, January 30th, 2024 at 4:38 AM, Peter Todd
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:12:07AM +, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> > Peter Todd proposes to sign multiple versions of offchain transactions at
> > varying feerates.
> > However, this proposal
> I should note that under Decker-Russell-Osuntokun the expectation is that
> both counterparties hold the same offchain transactions (hence why it is
> sometimes called "LN-symmetry").
> However, there are two ways to get around this:
>
> 1. Split the fee between them in some "fair" way.
>
Good morning Michael et al,
>
> I assume that a CTV based LN-Symmetry also has this drawback when compared to
> an APO based LN-Symmetry? In theory at least an APO based LN-Symmetry could
> change the fees in every channel update based on what the current market fee
> rate was at the time of
Hi Peter
Interesting post. By implicitly committing in advance to the fee paid by the
spending transaction CTV is certainly nailing its colors to the CPFP mast
rather than operating in a RBF world. And in a future high fee environment
(ignoring whatever is driving those high fees, monetary or
