Hi Bastien,
Thank you for your feedback!
> In your example we have a parent transaction A already in the mempool
> and an unrelated child B. We submit a package C + D where C spends
> another of A's inputs. You're highlighting that this package may be
> rejected because of the unrelated transacti
Hi Gloria,
> I believe this attack is mitigated as long as we attempt to submit
transactions individually
Unfortunately not, as there exists a pinning scenario in LN where a
different commit tx is pinned, but you actually can't know which one.
Since I really like your diagrams, I made one as wel
Hi Bastien,
Excellent diagram :D
> Here the issue is that a revoked commitment tx A' is pinned in other
> mempools, with a long chain of descendants (or descendants that reach
> the maximum replaceable size).
> We would really like A + C to be able to replace this pinned A'.
> We can't submit ind
