📅 Original date posted:2020-10-05
📝 Original message:
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 lands in bitcoin, so I wanted to explore this as
a potential more short-term
solution. But maybe it's not worth the effort and we should focus more on
anchors and `min_relay_fee`,
we'll see ;)
Bastien
Le lun. 5 oct. 2020 à 15:25, darosior <darosior at protonmail.com> a écrit :
> 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).
>
>
> Agreed.
> However in an anchor outputs future the funder only pays for the
> "backbone" fees of the channel and the fees necessary to secure the
> confirmation of transactions is paid in second stage by each interested
> party (*). It seems to me to be a reasonable middle-ground.
>
> (*) Credits to ZmnSCPxj for pointing this out to me on IRC.
>
> Darosior
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20201005/b987b4a9/attachment.html>;
Bastien TEINTURIER [ARCHIVE] /
npub17f…ntr0s
2023-06-09 13:00:59
in reply to nevent1q…2ejv
Author Public Key
npub17fjkngg0s0mfx4uhhz6n4puhflwvrhn2h5c78vdr5xda4mvqx89swntr0sPublished at
2023-06-09 13:00:59Event JSON
{
"id": "9bf6eb8f64f53c08021d5313d84114cf826baa429b79bdedd0e1cfb67c4e6a7e",
"pubkey": "f26569a10f83f6935797b8b53a87974fdcc1de6abd31e3b1a3a19bdaed8031cb",
"created_at": 1686315659,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fec71d3de654367615cc4717048ad27af6f514e566116a304019e8b84f85ddb2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4dec9a04fea228b0a2e33e93ada9f3a22da11fd034aea525ad86bab5165d64f9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0c8af5293ea8c40f3686f22669674e0c116a8e92467163929d736aa891b7ece2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-10-05\n📝 Original message:\nHi darosior,\n\nThis is true, but we haven't solved yet how to estimate a good enough\n`min_relay_fee` that works\nfor end-to-end tx propagation over the network.\n\nWe've discussed this during the last two spec meetings, but it's still\nunclear whether we'll be able to solve\nthis before package-relay lands in bitcoin, so I wanted to explore this as\na potential more short-term\nsolution. But maybe it's not worth the effort and we should focus more on\nanchors and `min_relay_fee`,\nwe'll see ;)\n\nBastien\n\nLe lun. 5 oct. 2020 à 15:25, darosior \u003cdarosior at protonmail.com\u003e a écrit :\n\n\u003e Hi Bastien,\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I think that *in some cases*, fundees should be paying a portion of the\n\u003e commit-tx on-chain fees,\n\u003e otherwise we may end up with a web-of-trust network where channels would\n\u003e only exist between peers\n\u003e that trust each other, which is quite limiting (I'm hoping we can do\n\u003e better).\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Agreed.\n\u003e However in an anchor outputs future the funder only pays for the\n\u003e \"backbone\" fees of the channel and the fees necessary to secure the\n\u003e confirmation of transactions is paid in second stage by each interested\n\u003e party (*). It seems to me to be a reasonable middle-ground.\n\u003e\n\u003e (*) Credits to ZmnSCPxj for pointing this out to me on IRC.\n\u003e\n\u003e Darosior\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20201005/b987b4a9/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "13577d2b3bc9f8ac6989e2bfefe8a3c8c2adc393ca11c31e189d1dcbfea8fbadea084b9546afdad2c50d98d0d76d4240eda7878745625fe8664eda93f3f6998c"
}