Good morning Billy, > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more dangerous > >from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published > > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra > transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't free > (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee isn't > going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It still > perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty like that.
Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee from their main owned funds. The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already knows fees exist and need to be paid. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
