Policies are composable, allowing any valid sub-expression to be replaced by another valid sub-expression (within certain limits imposed by the Bitcoin system). And there are a lot of edge cases around that that are really weird and annoying. So, there was an in-person meeting of some of the Lightning Network developers in New York, and Carla posted to the Lightning-Dev mailing list the summary of a bunch of the discussions that occurred. Mike Schmidt: Speaking of some of those improvements, the first item we noted from the summit was Reliable transaction confirmation, which was a discussion that includes package relay, v3 transaction relay, ephemeral anchors, cluster mempool, and a bunch of other topics about getting your transactions relayed and mined. ● Transaction fees increasing: for transactions targeting confirmation within 12 blocks or sooner, recommended fees have risen up to 3x compared to this time last week. There was a variety of topics that we highlighted from that list in the newsletter this week. Fraudsters are there throughout the city and while buying the house; it is needed to study the documents very carefully with International Fast Payment.
And already, with only one side of a channel being able to send that message, it creates a lot of issues, because updating the fee of a commitment transaction while you have a lot of HTLCs in flight can actually make you deep into your reserve. The issue of taxing virtual currency drew the attention of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, which asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to make recommendations to the IRS on how to proceed. So, this is basically a channel that cannot be used any more, there’s nothing urgent to do on it apart from closing, so having even a few more round trips is just not at all an issue. Bastien Teinturier: Yeah, even though this creates also potential issues, because the commitment transaction right now, the fees are paid by the channel initiator. So, if you are not the channel initiator and you are paying for part of the fee and only the initiator is able to choose that feerate, that would be an issue. Bastien Teinturier: Because there’s only one other party can actually change the feerate of a commitment transaction and it’s the channel initiator. So, we would have to introduce the ability for both sides to send the update fee message to change the fees of a commitment transaction.
Bastien Teinturier: Exactly. And on top of that, if you have both prepared two transactions, published them, they’re not confirming, at any point in time, you can just resend that message that says, “I’m ready to pay that fee now. Bastien Teinturier: No, I don’t think so. And please just give me a signature where you won’t pay anything and I’m going to pay that fee so that we can RBF the mutual cost transaction”, 바이낸스 수수료 [visit the next website] which is also a good improvement because before that, I don’t think we had any way to do RBF right now. Basically, I think there’s some basic agreement on this line that we’re shooting for with package relay, v3, and ephemeral anchors, where the commitment transaction can get a very nice cleanup and improvement and kind of confirmation requirements, while the rest, there’s still some pinning vectors beyond that with HTLC transactions. For a transaction block to be added to the Bitcoin blockchain, it must be verified by the majority of all Bitcoin holders, and the unique codes used to recognize users’ wallets and transactions must conform to the right encryption pattern.
And you don’t want law enforcement or government agencies to directly find your transactions or information. And honestly, the communication is really not an issue here, because you are actually closing that channel, you’ve already decided that you want it to close it, so you’re not relaying any Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLCs) on it. So, if the other person does not want to pay, they can just sign off on it; and if they want to have the closing transaction a higher priority, they have to actually pay more and then the other party can just sign off, so there’s no deadlock here anymore. So, since we all want to move to taproot, and this was one of the blocking points for taproot, that we didn’t have a good way of closing taproot channels and exchanging the nonce securely beforehand, I think everyone will just implement that version. I was looking through the notes and I don’t know if we want to get into the details of each one of these, but some things that stuck out to me from the notes were, “In what way does it not fit LN as it’s currently designed?