1, glossary Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography, in which two cryptographic keys, one public and one private, are generated. ● Upfront payments: if Alice’s node wants to forward payments through Bob’s node, her node first uses LN to buy a credential from Bob. 14054: this PR prevents the node from sending BIP61 peer-to-peer protocol reject messages by default. In a slowly-progressing discussion, members of the bitcoin-dev mailing list have been attempting to construct an informally-worded security proof that enabling graftroot delegation by default doesn’t reduce the security of users who don’t need it (e.g. who just want to use taproot without delegation or even just plain MAST). ● Extensions and alternatives to Bitcoin Script: several developers discussed on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list ideas for improving Bitcoin’s Script and tapscript languages, which those receiving bitcoins use to specify how they’ll later prove they authorized any spending of those bitcoins. I thought in my head, they’ll probably pick a better protocol by the time it actually would be required and ends up being true, so that’s good news. It really makes the protocol simpler and it allows us to do some things that we could not do before, like imposing dynamic limits on what gets into our commitment.
Mike Schmidt: Greg had mentioned DLCs as another potential protocol or different types of protocols that should be considering relay policy, mempool, and getting confirmations. Greg Sanders: Well, they can all be jamming vectors, it depends. This can provide up to a 9x speed-up over Bitcoin Core 0.16.x for cases where the new code applies and is supported by the user’s CPU. Bitcoin Core comes bundled with a tool called bitcoin-tx that can do this for you. These sketches can provide a powerful new way to optimize relay of unconfirmed transactions for the Bitcoin P2P network. 1706 adds support for using compact block filters as specified in BIP158 for downloading confirmed transactions. 656 adds a feature bits specification to BOLT11, allowing payments to indicate which features they support or require. 3623 adds a minimal implementation (only available with the configuration parameter –enable-experimental-features) for spending payments using blinded paths. ” I’ve always thought of route hints as being used when, if I’m a recipient of a payment and I’m using unannounced or private channels, that I would provide some additional information to a sender so they know how to route to me. Instead of an independent contract that resolves to True in order to be a valid transaction, the exact same contract is included in a LN payment and must return true in order for the in-channel payment transaction to be valid.
We see that, in general, it takes longer for a transaction to confirm the less you pay-but users of segwit can often pay less per transaction for the same amount of waiting. That’s why we’re not doing that right now, and that’s why most people will just keep announcing the output that really corresponds to the channel so that when it gets spent, people actually notice it and can remove it from that graph and know that they cannot route through that channel anymore. Mark Erhardt: I think that there might also be a couple of issues click here now with if you, for example, have one peer that you closely work with and you want to funnel more fees to, you could always route boost them and then make sure that they collect the fees rather than other peers you have, which may be sort of a downside of prioritizing boosted peers. Mark Erhardt: Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, I don’t understand why the balance is not – well, I guess in the initial balance all of the balance is on the side of the opener and that’s why they have to pay the fees.
Mike Schmidt: Yeah, I think it’s probably good to jump into the second news item, then we can continue some of this discussion. So, in the regular multi-hop payment as we use it today, the last hop getting established of the contract also transfers the secret to the recipient so that they can start to pull in the payment, which makes it cascade back to the sender. This would allow someone to route a payment through Alice’s node but limit how much of her capital they could tie up. The hops going past the node won’t be used, but they will make it harder for the spender to determine how many hops the receiver is from the last non-blinded forwarding node in the route. So, since our goal is rather to go in the direction of removing update fee entirely and using zero-fee commitment transactions, we’re just not going to bother changing how the fee is paid before we get to that point.