📅 Original date posted:2019-07-16
📝 Original message:
Hi all,
In Adelaide we proposed that CSV delays be symmetric; that the
to-self output would be delayed to avoid weird "no, you close!" games.
Unfortunately, Roasbeef points out that this undermines the
great strength of the option_static_remotekey, which allows a
disaster-recovery scenario to easily discover any unknown unilateral
closes using only a master seed. Turns out, this "I deleted everything
but I kept my seed!" is a real thing.
We could still use the max of the two sides' CSV, but that's
already a choice that sides can make (if accepting, simply offer the
same value, and if opening, error and retry if their accept contains a
larger value).
So I think this proposal should be abandoned.
Thoughts?
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:55:36
in reply to nevent1q…jg0p
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:55:36Event JSON
{
"id": "c7f16d491378277bc6138dd899db52ad0466f9d51a344d267cb97d186f4634ec",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315336,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4ed5097f84a96d355dd0c09671071ce607be05110e934ca0ea1fefe7258fc79c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-07-16\n📝 Original message:\nHi all,\n\n In Adelaide we proposed that CSV delays be symmetric; that the\nto-self output would be delayed to avoid weird \"no, you close!\" games.\n\n Unfortunately, Roasbeef points out that this undermines the\ngreat strength of the option_static_remotekey, which allows a\ndisaster-recovery scenario to easily discover any unknown unilateral\ncloses using only a master seed. Turns out, this \"I deleted everything\nbut I kept my seed!\" is a real thing.\n\n We could still use the max of the two sides' CSV, but that's\nalready a choice that sides can make (if accepting, simply offer the\nsame value, and if opening, error and retry if their accept contains a\nlarger value).\n\nSo I think this proposal should be abandoned.\n\nThoughts?\nRusty.",
"sig": "f87730d23a3bf61b2f073e56011d71cad0d7c299dfa12851dd9085a2e4de6e39d66a7e958bee688ebdb1d29ad9dd0d338ef13a68d6528eee7dff7f449680897a"
}