š
Original date posted:2018-11-16
š Original message:
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 (initiator-pays) was proposed on the summit, by my memory.
At the time, I was going to propose also that only the splice-initiator would then be allowed to add splice-ins and/or splice-outs, since the splice-initiator "owns" the splice (as it pays all the fees).
And then, I would also propose that once splice-initiator indicates satisfaction with splice ins and outs, the two switch sides (but the fees proposed by the first splice-initiator remain deducted from the splice-initiator) and the other party has an opportunity to add its own splice-ins/outs, for which it would pay for.
However, RBF adds a whole new dimension...
It's certainly much easier to reason about a single payer of the fees.
>
> RBF it implicitly requires multiple (exclusive) splices at once. This
> will all require a great deal of testing...
Would it be useful to define a dual-funding RBF protocol first, so we have practice for splice RBF?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5ā¦3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:52:55
in reply to nevent1qā¦0m0q
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:52:55Event JSON
{
"id": "9a47743c056a31fb23d0f374df7316f492f903e85d230cd8d5797e3afbbdad90",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315175,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7d2f82c243d88197c3ccdbb3c172e25ab566f0ed67baf16e6557099ed7dfd5e3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cc573d78acfcdbb19a417c8eac012e6357edf4462fc460ab52ffa8519b651ab4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-11-16\nš Original message:\nGood morning Rusty,\n\n\u003e I tried to simplify RBF as much as possible; it adds a lot of\n\u003e complexity :( In particular, below we have one side pay the fees (and\n\u003e thus responsible for RBF), in violation of the summit agreement,\n\u003e and simplified the fee amount as much as reasonable.\n\nThis (initiator-pays) was proposed on the summit, by my memory.\nAt the time, I was going to propose also that only the splice-initiator would then be allowed to add splice-ins and/or splice-outs, since the splice-initiator \"owns\" the splice (as it pays all the fees).\nAnd then, I would also propose that once splice-initiator indicates satisfaction with splice ins and outs, the two switch sides (but the fees proposed by the first splice-initiator remain deducted from the splice-initiator) and the other party has an opportunity to add its own splice-ins/outs, for which it would pay for.\n\nHowever, RBF adds a whole new dimension...\nIt's certainly much easier to reason about a single payer of the fees.\n\n\u003e\n\u003e RBF it implicitly requires multiple (exclusive) splices at once. This\n\u003e will all require a great deal of testing...\n\nWould it be useful to define a dual-funding RBF protocol first, so we have practice for splice RBF?\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj",
"sig": "180a78e09812d92975f5317fc3b997b131667c41fef0b4a2365186860677ab4f533684bb069c592593059eb24063f327f246a9a8f56dfb379cb1c9c382c0fc60"
}