From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Rune =?utf-8?Q?Kj=C3=A6r?= Svendsen <runesvend@gmail.com>, Bitcoin
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH2=CKxummve0yyCO6Tj9S3be6bLy0K4V1JatqAOVBCci5jobQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2=CKxummve0yyCO6Tj9S3be6bLy0K4V1JatqAOVBCci5jobQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 13:46:20 +0930
Message-ID: <87oa8q5s6j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simple Bitcoin Payment Channel Protocol v0.1
	draft	(request for comments)
Precedence: list

Rune Kj=C3=A6r Svendsen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> Dear list
>
> I've spent the past couple of months developing a simple protocol for
> working with payment channels. I've written up a specification of how
> it operates, in an attempt to standardize the operations of opening,
> paying and closing.

Hi!

        CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY [...] allows payment channel
        setup to be risk free [...] something that was
        not the case before, when the refund Bitcoin transaction
        depended on another, unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction. Building
        on unconfirmed transactions is currently not safe in Bitcoin

With Segregated Witness, this is now safe.  With that expected soon, I'd
encourage you to take advantage of it.

Cheers,
Rusty.