Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-20 Thread Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions, > because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much > higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms Bitcoin as > a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize debat

Re: [bitcoin-dev] PathCoin

2022-02-20 Thread AdamISZ via bitcoin-dev
An update, after some feedback, and me using the odd hour here and there to try to push this idea forward a bit: 1. I think (though I'm not 100% certain) that you can get rid of the fidelity bond requirement entirely with an eltoo/D-R-O type mechanism, assuming APOAS. 2. With a relaxation of onl

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-02-20 Thread Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
Morning! > > For the latter case, CPFP would work and already exists. > **Unless** you are doing something complicated and offchain-y and involves > relative locktimes, of course. > > The "usual" design I recommend for Vaults contains something that is like: { CSV CHECKSIG, CHECKSIG} or { CSV

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-02-20 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning Jeremy, > opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO. > > As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key > required means you have to pre-plan suppose you're building a vault meant > to distribute funds over many years, do you real

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-02-20 Thread Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
opt-in or explicit tagging of fee account is a bad design IMO. As pointed out by James O'Beirne in the other email, having an explicit key required means you have to pre-plan suppose you're building a vault meant to distribute funds over many years, do you really want a *specific* precommitted

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-02-20 Thread Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
-- @JeremyRubin On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 1:39 AM Peter Todd wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:38:27PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote: > > > As I said, it's a new kind of pinning attack, distinct from other types > > of pinning attack. > > > > I think pinning is "fo

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-02-20 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning DA, > Agreed, you cannot rely on a replacement transaction would somehow > invalidate a previous version of it, it has been spoken into the gossip > and exists there in mempools somewhere if it does, there is no guarantee > that anyone has ever heard of the replacement transaction as