rich1.0npub17fjkngg0s0mfx4uhhz6n4puhflwvrhn2h5c78vdr5xda4mvqx89swntr0shttps://nostr.ae/npub17fjkngg0s0mfx4uhhz6n4puhflwvrhn2h5c78vdr5xda4mvqx89swntr0snjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2020-10-05 📝 Original message: Hi darosior, This is true, but we haven't solved yet how to estimate a good enough `min_relay_fee` that works for end-to-end tx propagation over the network. We've discussed this during the last two spec meetings, but it's still unclear whether we'll be able to solve this before package-relay lands in bitcoin, so I wanted to explore this as a potential more short-term solution. But maybe it's not worth the effort and we should focus more on anchors and `min_relay_fee`, we'll see ;) Bastien Le lun. 5 oct. 2020 à 15:25, darosior <darosior at protonmail.com> a écrit : > Hi Bastien, > > > I think that *in some cases*, fundees should be paying a portion of the > commit-tx on-chain fees, > otherwise we may end up with a web-of-trust network where channels would > only exist between peers > that trust each other, which is quite limiting (I'm hoping we can do > better). > > > Agreed. > However in an anchor outputs future the funder only pays for the > "backbone" fees of the channel and the fees necessary to secure the > confirmation of transactions is paid in second stage by each interested > party (*). It seems to me to be a reasonable middle-ground. > > (*) Credits to ZmnSCPxj for pointing this out to me on IRC. > > Darosior > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20201005/b987b4a9/attachment.html>