> That's a question I hope we'll gather feedback during next Thursday's
transaction relay workshops.
As someone kindly pointed out to me, workshop is happening Tuesday, June
22th. Not Thursday, mistake of mine :/
Le ven. 18 juin 2021 à 18:11, Antoine Riard a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> It's a big chunk
Hi Alex,
The 10 Sat fee is Sabu-transaction-fee and goes to issuers to
incentivize UTXO owners to put their money in system and prepare money
transfer service for the Creditors. pretty much like banks.
This number is my suggestion, but can be changed to something higher or
lesser or even being cu
I think I respond to sybil attack implicitly in Max response. Since the
only consensus must be between issuer and creditor and they already are
in a kind of web of trust connection.
By the way it would be great if you explain the attack scenario in more
detail and our conventional terms such as iss
Hi,
It's a big chunk, so if you don't have time browse parts 1 and 2 and share
your 2 sats on the deployment timeline :p
This post recalls some unsolved safety holes about Lightning, how
package-relay or SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT can solve the first one, how a mempool
hardening can solve the second one,
A few questions/comments:
Why is there a 10 sat fee on each tx? Where does that fee go?
I don’t think this design sufficiently protects against double spends by
the “issuer” (the person who actually has the UTXO). Your guarantee tx
mechanism only really covers the case where someone tries to doub
It is vulnerable to sybil attacks or where the recipient is a victim of a
proxy attack. If the recipient is not connected to a valid Network, then
double spends could be allowed.
as long as this protocol is intended for use of transactions around a
dollar or so I don't see that being a financial
for very small transactions, this seems to make a hell of a lot of sense.
it's like lightning, but with no limits, no routing protocols...
everything is guaranteed by relative fees and the cost-of-theft.
pretty cool.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:14 PM raymo via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have
