From ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com Fri Nov 16 08:37:07 2018 From: ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com (ZmnSCPxj) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:37:07 +0000 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Splicing Proposal: Now with RBF In-Reply-To: <87h8gh1wtn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87h8gh1wtn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: Good morning Rusty, > I tried to simplify RBF as much as possible; it adds a lot of > complexity :( In particular, below we have one side pay the fees (and > thus responsible for RBF), in violation of the summit agreement, > and simplified the fee amount as much as reasonable. This (initiator-pays) was proposed on the summit, by my memory. At the time, I was going to propose also that only the splice-initiator would then be allowed to add splice-ins and/or splice-outs, since the splice-initiator "owns" the splice (as it pays all the fees). And then, I would also propose that once splice-initiator indicates satisfaction with splice ins and outs, the two switch sides (but the fees proposed by the first splice-initiator remain deducted from the splice-initiator) and the other party has an opportunity to add its own splice-ins/outs, for which it would pay for. However, RBF adds a whole new dimension... It's certainly much easier to reason about a single payer of the fees. > > RBF it implicitly requires multiple (exclusive) splices at once. This > will all require a great deal of testing... Would it be useful to define a dual-funding RBF protocol first, so we have practice for splice RBF? Regards, ZmnSCPxj