Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers

2022-02-26 Thread Billy Tetrud
> m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living Math is brutal On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Good morning Paul, > >

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-01-19 Thread Billy Tetrud
OP_VER to indicate a txn sponsoring txn. Because the OP_VER is > in the output space, and uses TXIDs, it is cycle-free. > > > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:52 AM Billy Tetrud > w

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-01-19 Thread Billy Tetrud
. reorg stability, where the deposit/withdraw > mechanism is a bit more "robust" for reorderings in reorgs than the in-band > transaction approach, although they are very similar. > > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/Jere

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-01-18 Thread Billy Tetrud
> -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 6:38 PM Billy Tetrud > wrote: > >> I see, its not primarily to make it cheaper to append fees, but also >> allows appending fees in

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-01-18 Thread Billy Tetrud
tter.com/JeremyRubin> > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 8:13 AM Billy Tetrud > wrote: > >> Do you have any back-of-the-napkin math on quantifying how much this >> would improve the situation vs existing methods (eg cpfp)? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts

2022-01-18 Thread Billy Tetrud
Do you have any back-of-the-napkin math on quantifying how much this would improve the situation vs existing methods (eg cpfp)? On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 2:04 PM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Happy new years devs, > > I figured I would share some

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit

2021-08-26 Thread Billy Tetrud
One interesting thing I thought of: the cost of maintenance of the dust creates a (very) small incentive to mine transactions that *use* dust outputs with a slightly lower fee that contain dust, in order to reduce the future maintenance cost for themselves. However, the rational discount would

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit

2021-08-11 Thread Billy Tetrud
For sure, CT can be done with computational soundness. The advantage of unhidden amounts (as with current bitcoin) is that you get unconditional soundness. My understanding is that there is a fundamental tradeoff between unconditional soundness and unconditional privacy. I believe Monero has taken

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit

2021-08-11 Thread Billy Tetrud
> 5) should we ever do confidential transactions we can't prevent it without > compromising privacy / allowed transfers I wanted to mention the dubiousness of adding confidential transactions to bitcoin. Because adding CT would eliminate the ability for users to audit the supply of Bitcoin, I