š
Original date posted:2018-01-15
š Original message:
Good Morning Richard,
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] [Question] Unilateral closing during fee increase.
> Local Time: January 14, 2018 8:37 PM
> UTC Time: January 14, 2018 12:37 PM
> From: richard.hagen at gmail.com
> To: Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org>
> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jonathan Underwood <junderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp>
>
> Complete n00b question here: if one side of the channel have 100% of the funds, can the last message give that user complete controll over the channel (to close it "unilateral" without any interaction from the other side?
The only trustless way to transfer control of the funds from one-sided back to both of them would be an on-chain transaction. So it is equivalent to closing the channel, then reopening it when the other side returns to be connected.
> And that way change the fee size when that part want's to close the channel?
>
> Or give the other side the complete controll over a channel if the funds on one side is less than what is currently needed to close a channel?
This puts trust into the system. If you are going to trust anyway,then you can probably trust that the other side will gracefully inform you of pending shutdown on their side and cooperatively close.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180114/1d1c0699/attachment-0001.html>;
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5ā¦3ms3l
2023-06-09 12:48:33
in reply to nevent1qā¦pz2h
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:33Event JSON
{
"id": "39a277b590425af220e7080259d701b0200c561d941a901a67badcb6d8099c48",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686314913,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e293fc5fb823c14dd2d8c02676a6e31579a209cd0f7c54d7af04d025bc5a25f6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cfabca763061fa3bb35cc2c04eceeaedde789587fa4949f513b236861b2dfab6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0a79fe3145531adccb29003008a85a994b8f4d422321fd4d95a9e50cf86729f7"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-01-15\nš Original message:\nGood Morning Richard,\n\n\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] [Question] Unilateral closing during fee increase.\n\u003e Local Time: January 14, 2018 8:37 PM\n\u003e UTC Time: January 14, 2018 12:37 PM\n\u003e From: richard.hagen at gmail.com\n\u003e To: Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e\n\u003e lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jonathan Underwood \u003cjunderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Complete n00b question here: if one side of the channel have 100% of the funds, can the last message give that user complete controll over the channel (to close it \"unilateral\" without any interaction from the other side?\n\nThe only trustless way to transfer control of the funds from one-sided back to both of them would be an on-chain transaction. So it is equivalent to closing the channel, then reopening it when the other side returns to be connected.\n\n\u003e And that way change the fee size when that part want's to close the channel?\n\u003e\n\u003e Or give the other side the complete controll over a channel if the funds on one side is less than what is currently needed to close a channel?\n\nThis puts trust into the system. If you are going to trust anyway,then you can probably trust that the other side will gracefully inform you of pending shutdown on their side and cooperatively close.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180114/1d1c0699/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "862b5c8c53e99150ce10c7f56c4a2357bff97c3c448f8874c8a975292d35ebd1df739a2ced994ced377ac9f8361aa68cf01769badc505e085ae383a38053e9de"
}