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

[ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>]

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