I may be missing something, but I'm not sure how this changes anything?
If you have a commitment transaction, you always need at least, and
exactly, one non-CSV output per party. The fact that there is a size
limitation on the transaction that spends for carve-out purposes only
effects how many ot
- It would be hard to prove you have access to an x that can produce
H(g^x) in a way that doesn't expose g^x and isn't one of those slow,
interactive bit-encryption algorithms.
- Instead a simple scheme would publish a transaction to the
blockchain that lists:
- pre-quantum signature
- h
> Anyway, according to the current considerations I explained in this email,
> I’d suggest extending BIP-155 with per-link-direction negotiation, but I’m
> interested in the opinion of the community.
I don't have a strong opinion here but intuitively, it seems to me that
per-link variant makes
Reviving this old thread now that the recently released RC for bitcoind
0.19 includes the above mentioned carve-out rule.
In an attempt to pave the way for more robust CPFP of on-chain contracts
(Lightning commitment transactions), the carve-out rule was added in
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
