Author: ZmnSCPxj 2018-11-10 13:46:24
Published on: 2018-11-10T13:46:24+00:00
This thread discusses the concept of dual-funding and a liquidity market for providing incoming capacity. The proposal suggests that the contract for purchasing liquidity should not only specify the amount to be allocated for capacity but also some duration for how long that capacity is to be allocated, which will help determine if the closure of a channel is improper or not. To impose a minimum lifetime to a channel, an additional CLTV constraint that determines the minimum channel lifetime can be added after symmetric CSV. The commitment transaction can be broadcast at any time, as it has no nLockTime. If Licky pretends to sleep and does not respond, it gains no additional money or utility. In case of emergency, Licky has the ability to enforce on-chain. If Mercy broadcasts the commitment transaction as soon as it is signed, it ties up Licky's funds, and Licky cannot earn routing fees. The entire point of Mercy performing this exercise is to receive money. If Licky disposes of its obligation without having most of its money tied to the channel, then the obligation is transferred to Randy. If an actual physical bolt of lightning were to strike Licky, then Mercy gets no incoming capacity, and the contract is effectively voided. This is simply the same as if a contract is voided by an "act of God".
Updated on: 2023-05-25T15:53:27.279419+00:00