From @Reardencode on X,
"Update on LNHANCE vs APO for LN-Symmetry(Eltoo):
Thanks @4moonsettler for pointing this out and sending me to do more research.
As noted by @theinstagibbs, using CTV(ish) in LN-Symmetry can eliminate round-trips from parts of the resulting payment protocol, but this has further implications!
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359
Up to today, I've been saying that LNHANCE costs 8vBytes more than APO for LN-Symmetry force closes, but because the protocol uses CTVish in its resolution scripts, it actually ends up being 8vB smaller to do LN-Symmetry with LNHANCE than with APO.
Update transactions are 8vB larger (+1 32-byte hash), but resolution transactions are 16vB smaller (-1 64-byte signature).
Of course if we had CTV+APO that would be even another 8vB smaller, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that for LN-Symmetry purposes LNHANCE is a suitable substitute for APO.
cc @murchandamus"
PolyD_
npub177…29jcw
2024-01-12 23:30:21
in reply to nevent1q…6k4y
Author Public Key
npub1775tuvua6h9mkmlqm3ragxpv3z3eegahhshydj36u2xq72vve9lsq29jcwPublished at
2024-01-12 23:30:21Event JSON
{
"id": "c0f5bd7ce8a3c1e7256acd88f2b668b6a21e6f7947478cf7bc1cdcc74588281b",
"pubkey": "f7a8be339dd5cbbb6fe0dc47d4182c88a39ca3b7bc2e46ca3ae28c0f298cc97f",
"created_at": 1705102221,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"686bcaecd51304bba4c9e92af0ac5c851843a34cc972d343a6b653902caf5cbb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"f7a8be339dd5cbbb6fe0dc47d4182c88a39ca3b7bc2e46ca3ae28c0f298cc97f"
],
[
"r",
"https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359"
]
],
"content": "From @Reardencode on X,\n\n\"Update on LNHANCE vs APO for LN-Symmetry(Eltoo):\n\nThanks @4moonsettler for pointing this out and sending me to do more research.\n\nAs noted by @theinstagibbs, using CTV(ish) in LN-Symmetry can eliminate round-trips from parts of the resulting payment protocol, but this has further implications!\n\nhttps://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ln-symmetry-project-recap/359\n\nUp to today, I've been saying that LNHANCE costs 8vBytes more than APO for LN-Symmetry force closes, but because the protocol uses CTVish in its resolution scripts, it actually ends up being 8vB smaller to do LN-Symmetry with LNHANCE than with APO. \n\nUpdate transactions are 8vB larger (+1 32-byte hash), but resolution transactions are 16vB smaller (-1 64-byte signature).\n\nOf course if we had CTV+APO that would be even another 8vB smaller, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that for LN-Symmetry purposes LNHANCE is a suitable substitute for APO.\n\ncc @murchandamus\"",
"sig": "f13e01c2aecabeb1b6bef4ea5875f3df0f2f4d44990e0a53ccd9752dd0a968c9ffe922e4f2e89d5123a7894f7ff473b95de4b0ff84627ce8269e386a55515e90"
}