Re: [Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF

2018-11-22 Thread Rusty Russell
lisa neigut writes: > Hello Rusty. Exciting stuff! A few observations: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:18 AM Rusty Russell > wrote: > >> ### Confirming a splice: `splice_confirm` >> >> 1. type: 43 (`splice_confirm`) (`option_splice`) >> 2. data: >>* [`32`:`channel_id`] >>*

Re: [Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF

2018-11-21 Thread lisa neigut
Hello Rusty. Exciting stuff! A few observations: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:18 AM Rusty Russell wrote: > ### Confirming a splice: `splice_confirm` > > 1. type: 43 (`splice_confirm`) (`option_splice`) > 2. data: >* [`32`:`channel_id`] >* [`64`:`signature`] >* [`2`:`num_witnesses`] >

Re: [Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF

2018-11-16 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Rusty, > I tried to simplify RBF as much as possible; it adds a lot of > complexity :( In particular, below we have one side pay the fees (and > thus responsible for RBF), in violation of the summit agreement, > and simplified the fee amount as much as reasonable. This

[Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF

2018-11-16 Thread Rusty Russell
Hi all, I tried to simplify RBF as much as possible; it adds a *lot* of complexity :( In particular, below we have one side pay the fees (and thus responsible for RBF), in violation of the summit agreement, and simplified the fee amount as much as reasonable. RBF it implicitly requires multiple