Many good thoughts here.
Personally I think we should design any changes for a package-relay
future, where the commitment can be 0-fee, update_fee doesn't longer
exist and fees are only decided upon on channel close.
- johan
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:25 AM Bastien TEINTURIER via Lightning-dev
I totally agree with the simplicity argument, I wanted to raise this
because it's (IMO) an issue
today because of the way we deal with on-chain fees, but it's less
impactful once update_fee is
scoped to some min_relay_fee.
Let's put this aside for now then and we can revisit later if needed.
> It seems to me that the "funder pays all the commit tx fees" rule exists
> solely for simplicity (which was totally reasonable).
At this stage, I've learned that simplicity (when doing anything that
involves multi-party on-chain fee negotiating/verification/enforcement can
really go a long
Thanks (again) Antoine and Zman for your answers,
On the other hand, a quick skim of your proposal suggests that it still
> respects the "initiator pays" principle.
> Basically, the fundee only pays fees for HTLCs they initiated, which is
> not relevant to the above attack (since in the above
Hello Bastien,
I'm all in for a model where channel transactions are pre-signed with a
reasonable minimal relay fee and the adjustment is done by the closer. The
channel initiator shouldn't have to pay for channel-closing as it's somehow
a liquidity allocation decision ("My balance could be
Good morning Bastien,
> Good morning list,
>
> It seems to me that the "funder pays all the commit tx fees" rule exists
> solely for simplicity
> (which was totally reasonable). I haven't been able to find much discussion
> about this decision
> on the mailing list nor in the spec commits.
Hi darosior,
This is true, but we haven't solved yet how to estimate a good enough
`min_relay_fee` that works
for end-to-end tx propagation over the network.
We've discussed this during the last two spec meetings, but it's still
unclear whether we'll be able to solve
this before package-relay
Hi Bastien,
> I think that *in some cases*, fundees should be paying a portion of the
> commit-tx on-chain fees,
> otherwise we may end up with a web-of-trust network where channels would only
> exist between peers
> that trust each other, which is quite limiting (I'm hoping we can do better).
Good morning list,
It seems to me that the "funder pays all the commit tx fees" rule exists
solely for simplicity
(which was totally reasonable). I haven't been able to find much discussion
about this decision
on the mailing list nor in the spec commits.
At first glance, it's true that at the
