Author: René Pickhardt 2018-11-23 20:03:59
Published on: 2018-11-23T20:03:59+00:00
In an email exchange between Cezary Dziemian and Rene Pickhardt, the former asked about penalty transactions and how one can increase fees when they suddenly rise. Rene explained that RBF (replace-by-fee) is not possible in the case of a unilateral (force) close because the signature of the former channel partner is required. He went on to say that for BOLT1.1, developers have agreed to have a third output in the commitment transactions which anyone can spend (OP_TRUE) and which is just above the dust level with no timelock so that anyone can CPFP it. In response to Cezary's question about claiming former channel partner funds, Rene explained that there is an economic incentive to quickly get the penalty transaction minded by using rather high fees or in case at this time really a lot of transactions come in to RBF. Cezary then asked about the time value and common approach among major three implementations. The email chain concluded with Rene providing his contact information.
Updated on: 2023-06-02T15:01:00.438230+00:00