MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6nZ-SkxvJLrOCOIdUtLOsdnl94DoX_NHY0uwZ7sw78t24FQ33QJlJU95W7Sk1ja5EFic5a3yql14MLmSAYFZvLGBS4lDUJfr8ut9hdB7GD4=@protonmail.com>
 <CALZpt+Ee9kuVjpXYgOb_7dB7Yr8HYmicdRhfgXsQkey2szNDHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0mhhHzTun8dpIcLda1CLFihMsgLoWQUEE8woKUKhf_UHYps2w7jVzbJAUJ302kQEB1ZdvMfakP9IBUHLM8bGns-pg0NHmpuak3yjpphjJnw=@protonmail.com>
 <CAD5xwhh9JHE0QAfRMeKs7w=L-GB5DaEomsQ0aH4ibSDi9Oe8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB3F3Dt6znirMfe4C6ASh6OvS_qR7XLx1fQ4O5ZCwbxhcNKsNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDYUJ66oA2gzjXYk2fvRaRMZeY4wCyS0KmimXtid03ahCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <gcBcBwsL0ocO4fpTF1ZNkFTWGNhuPCHpbwjV5pzO4I2IR9WOfEEsQqL_i2IMqV2k8eDj9POJlQ0IX7eIzovjYq7gV6E6LTOjmAlINIIbxQM=@protonmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:59:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDY6X3X4ne0AatGaVx9tZSsi9V4hTAVfef-Hqe1kH0SXHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d68adb05d8661e87"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to
	`OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`
Precedence: list

--000000000000d68adb05d8661e87
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Billy,
>
> > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more
> dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
> >
> > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
> transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't
> free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee
> isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It
> still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty
> like that.
>
> Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you
> could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state
> transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of
> Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee
> from their main owned funds.
> The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by
> itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already
> knows fees exist and need to be paid.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

--000000000000d68adb05d8661e87
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!=C2=A0</div><br><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 19=
, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">Z=
mnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2=
04);padding-left:1ex">Good morning Billy,<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0&quot;fully&quot; punitive channels also make large value ch=
annels more dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old=C2=A0states =
to be published<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Wouldn&#39;t it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single ex=
tra transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren&=
#39;t free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a sing=
le fee isn&#39;t going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing=
 case. It still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small p=
enalty like that.<br>
<br>
Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you coul=
d continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state transactions =
(congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of Poon-Dryja) an=
d have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee from their main=
 owned funds.<br>
The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by itsel=
f without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already know=
s fees exist and need to be paid.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000d68adb05d8661e87--