📅 Original date posted:2018-11-29
📝 Original message:
For the low low cost of 3 witness bytes, I think the simplification of
analysis/separation of concerns is worth it, though I agree it is
probably not strictly required.
On 11/26/18 3:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> I think you haven't got the commitment tx onchain by the time the HTLC
> expires, you're already in trouble.
>
> But since there's no script length difference, it *is* simpler to
> prepend `1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP` to the start of each script.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-09 12:53:03
in reply to nevent1q…g9wm
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-09 12:53:03Event JSON
{
"id": "9d475db1e90a7986a479bc5ecb56b600118d371100b180bdb1bbd645e9a72315",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686315183,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"61bdb1113c2be407a2b6f72754d78bf88b3bb4d02794bc6282368d740c0e6130",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"653e0d33b96e8df2b0dabab48bf804eb0c16622cbde5dbba3c4cbbb199527654",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-11-29\n📝 Original message:\nFor the low low cost of 3 witness bytes, I think the simplification of \nanalysis/separation of concerns is worth it, though I agree it is \nprobably not strictly required.\n\nOn 11/26/18 3:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:\n\u003e Matt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e Hmm, are we willing to consider CLTV sufficient? In case you have two\n\u003e\u003e HTLCs, one of medium-small value that has a low CLTV and one of high\n\u003e\u003e value that has a higher CLTV, you could potentially use the soon-CLTV to\n\u003e\u003e delay the commitment transaction somewhat further if you broadcast it\n\u003e\u003e right as the sooner HTLC expires.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think you haven't got the commitment tx onchain by the time the HTLC\n\u003e expires, you're already in trouble.\n\u003e \n\u003e But since there's no script length difference, it *is* simpler to\n\u003e prepend `1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP` to the start of each script.\n\u003e \n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Rusty.\n\u003e",
"sig": "b26ac0d30bedec88a47597c0d88185295047d9e0d326eee5bd5474649f71b78608cd4f55916a99d2bb991e469e81559a0d6f1f9a8bcc0a098321512a78622524"
}