[Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of option_simplfied_commitment
lf-lists at mattcorallo.com
Sun Nov 25 19:09:25 UTC 2018
Hmm, are we willing to consider CLTV sufficient? In case you have two
HTLCs, one of medium-small value that has a low CLTV and one of high
value that has a higher CLTV, you could potentially use the soon-CLTV to
delay the commitment transaction somewhat further if you broadcast it
right as the sooner HTLC expires. This may be a bit edge-case-y but to
keep things symmetric and simplify analysis it seems simpler to just CSV
everything by 1.
As for other RBF hacks, I think you may have a hard time convincing
people to accept free relay :p.
Will kick off the discussion on bitcoin-dev once we're clear on our design.
On 11/22/18 5:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
>> Ah, oops, indeed, that is much cleaner :). Still need a CSV of 1, though :(.
> OK, let's walk through this:
> Locally offered HTLC:
> - Local HTLC-Timeout tx is CLTV delayed, but remote can fulfill without delay.
> Remote offered HTLC:
> - Local HTLC-Success tx can be done without delay, but remote timeout is CLTV.
> - HTLC output scripts get a `1 OP_CSV OP_DROP` in the non-revoked branch:
> OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <RIPEMD160(SHA256(revocationpubkey))> OP_EQUAL
> + 1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP
> - HTLC-Success tx needs nSequence = 1.
> - Similarly any self-generated fulfullment tx needs nSequence = 1.
> I still want a new RBF rule where if you pay twice the current package
> *feerate* your tx is accepted, overriding RBF rules 3, 4 & 5. Probably
> need to increase the effective minrelay feerate for any txs adding to
> that package, similarly (using that double-previous-package-feerate).
> That would mean we're back to a single P2WSH(OP_TRUE) with less
> blockchain spam, and life is simple. But I'll debate this on
> bitcoin-dev :)
More information about the Lightning-dev