ZmnSCPxj writes:
> Good morning Rusty and list,
>
>>
>> 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
>> should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)
>>
>
> My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at
> Bitcoin level first?
Hi Zmn,
> It may be reduced to a set reconciliation problem if we consider the
> timestamp and enable/disable state of channel updates as part of an item,
> i.e. a channel update of 111:1:1 at 2018-10-04 state=enabled is not the same
> as a channel update of 111:1:1 at 2018-10-05
Good morning Rusty and list,
>
> 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
> should use an OP_TRUE-style output to allow CPFP (Roasbeef)
>
My understanding is that this would require some base-layer changes at Bitcoin
level first? At minimum IsStandard()
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, October 12, 2018 2:36 PM, Rusty Russell
wrote:
> ZmnSCPxj zmnsc...@protonmail.com writes:
>
> > Good morning Rusty and list,
> >
> > > 1. Rather than trying to agree on what fees will be in the future, we
> > >
