From pm+lists at acinq.fr Wed Jul 24 12:20:03 2019 From: pm+lists at acinq.fr (Pierre) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:20:03 +0200 Subject: [Lightning-dev] [PROPOSAL] Removal of proposal to make CSV delay symmetric In-Reply-To: <87tvbctggw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <877e8hmom0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87tvbi8sd8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87tvbctggw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: > Well one of 6, 36, 144, 432 or 1008 is probably more than enough choice. Indeed, that seems entirely reasonable. > Most of the time, local commitments are not in play. But if your node > drops out, remote commitments definitely will be. That's true, although in my experience, the refund delay after a local commitment is often a period when the user may decide to do unexpected things, because "something went wrong and a reinstall may fix it". > I think being able to rescue some funds from a pre-lightning wallet is a > nice thing to have at this stage. Right, but it does introduce some uncertainty: depending on the exact nature of the close, something may or may not appear in the user's wallet. I think that would have been the correct approach for BOLT 1, but now I'd favor a well designed recovery tool. Since the Electrum team is working on LN, maybe we could get them to support this simple heuristic?