From lf-lists at mattcorallo.com  Thu Nov 29 17:13:44 2018
From: lf-lists at mattcorallo.com (Matt Corallo)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:13:44 +0000
Subject: [Lightning-dev] [PATCH] First draft of
 option_simplfied_commitment
In-Reply-To: <87d0qs8rc1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
	<87d0qs8rc1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Message-ID: <2fc2a452-62b8-201f-4a12-453d48cb01f6@mattcorallo.com>

For the low low cost of 3 witness bytes, I think the simplification of 
analysis/separation of concerns is worth it, though I agree it is 
probably not strictly required.

On 11/26/18 3:12 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 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.
>