Re: [bitcoin-dev] `OP_EVICT`: An Alternative to `OP_TAPLEAFUPDATEVERIFY`

[Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1219 bytes --]

Thanks for the clarification ZmnSCPxj!

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 5:41 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Billy,
>
> > > "fully" punitive channels also make large value channels more
> dangerous from the perspective of bugs causing old states to be published
> >
> > Wouldn't it be ideal to have the penalty be to pay for a single extra
> transaction fee? That way there is a penalty so cheating attempts aren't
> free (for someone who wants to close a channel anyway) and yet a single fee
> isn't going to be much of a concern in the accidental publishing case. It
> still perplexes me why eltoo chose no penalty at all vs a small penalty
> like that.
>
> Nothing in the Decker-Russell-Osunstokun paper *prevents* that --- you
> could continue to retain per-participant versions of update+state
> transactions (congruent to the per-participant commitment transactions of
> Poon-Dryja) and have each participant hold a version that deducts the fee
> from their main owned funds.
> The Decker-Russell-Osuntokun paper simply focuses on the mechanism by
> itself without regard to fees, on the understanding that the reader already
> knows fees exist and need to be paid.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1550 bytes --]