From rusty at rustcorp.com.au  Mon Nov 26 03:12:30 2018
From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:42:30 +1030
Subject: [Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of
	option_simplfied_commitment
In-Reply-To: <ef2a0524-b2ae-ea2a-34b7-af626b311812@mattcorallo.com>
References: <87bm6jp42a.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<e0c177b5-99ab-4ca9-81e3-3bb53d92d262@bluematt.me>
	<1ea6ecfd-0f17-4aab-44c8-3c3e457cc4d6@bluematt.me>
	<87va4qnj7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<8027ECDC-1A1D-4372-856B-388A1A5C58CC@mattcorallo.com>
	<8736rtn19l.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<ef2a0524-b2ae-ea2a-34b7-af626b311812@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <87d0qs8rc1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> writes:
> Hmm, are we willing to consider CLTV sufficient? In case you have two 
> HTLCs, one of medium-small value that has a low CLTV and one of high 
> value that has a higher CLTV, you could potentially use the soon-CLTV to 
> delay the commitment transaction somewhat further if you broadcast it 
> right as the sooner HTLC expires.

I think you haven't got the commitment tx onchain by the time the HTLC
expires, you're already in trouble.

But since there's no script length difference, it *is* simpler to
prepend `1 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP` to the start of each script.

Cheers,
Rusty.