Author: Cezary Dziemian 2018-11-23 20:31:20
Published on: 2018-11-23T20:31:20+00:00
Cezary Dziemian, a user on the Lightning-dev mailing list, has raised concerns about outdated commitment transactions and the potential for attackers to commit such transactions and spam the bitcoin mempool with transactions in order to increase fees. He is questioning whether it is possible to RBF (replace-by-fee) penalty transactions, which are used to claim outputs from outdated commitment transactions, and whether this is implemented as default behavior in popular LN implementations: clightning, eclair, lnd. René Pickhardt, another member of the mailing list, has responded, explaining that while RBF may be possible for penalty transactions, it may not be practical due to the need for a signature from the former channel partner. He also notes that there is currently no way to CPFP (child-pays-for-parent) the output of a commitment transaction due to the timelock on the output, but that for BOLT1.1, a proposal has been made for a third output in the commitment transactions that anyone can spend (OP_TRUE) and which has no timelock, allowing anyone to CPFP it.
Updated on: 2023-06-02T15:01:47.426778+00:00