Topic

<br> If you prefer listening to audio rather than reading the weekly Optech newsletter, Max Hillebrand of World Crypto Network has recorded readings of every newsletter to date-providing a total of more than 6 hours of technical news about Bitcoin so far. 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. We are passionate about Bitcoin and are keen to share news about the people, companies and technological developments that are changing our world. So, making sure that you are actually pinning it and getting more value out of the attack than what you paid to actually make the pinning work is probably quite hard today, especially with the state of the mempool. So, especially with something with symmetric, you basically have to worry about when your transaction hits the mempool and there’s no penalty. 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. 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. Fees are optional and are paid by the sending party to speed up transaction confirmation. In particular, Poinsot looked at schemes for multiparty protocols with more than two participants, for which the current CPFP carve out transaction relay policy doesn’t work, requiring them to use transaction replacement mechanisms that may be vulnerable to transaction pinning. The parameter may be passed multiple times for different directories. Bastien Teinturier: Sure. So right now, when we announced the channel on the network, we explicitly announced node IDs and the Bitcoin keys that are inside the multisig 2-of-2, and people verified that the output that we are referencing is actually locked with the script hash of multisig 2-of-2 of those two keys, so you can only use it with scripts that really follow the format of Lightning channels without taproot<br>p>
Bastien Teinturier: Okay, so for now, the first thing we are doing with taproot is just moving the funding transactions, the channel output to use the MuSig2 taproot output. The functions of the Bitcoin login process are very speedy and easy to understand and utilize. When a new block is discovered, the successful miner who found it click through the following website the mining process gets to fill it with 1 megabyte’s worth of validated transactions. So this would really simplify the proposal, but is it really worth it, because it still makes the commitment transactions weakness bigger than if we just spend the MuSig2 output. Mark Erhardt: Sorry, I wanted to make the call back here that the proposal with the v3 transactions and the ephemeral anchors, of course, is what allows commitment transactions themselves no longer to have any fees. So, that would be enabling us to (a) have to have one that makes the force close bring the fees, and (b) to have zero fees on the commitment transactions themselves. So, just a bit of context there. There was a variety of topics that we highlighted from that list in the newsletter this week. Finally, since there is no centralized institution engaged that could process them, KYC and AML procedures are not necessar<br>/p>
Hence, NFTs are designed to give you something you can’t get anywhere else: ownership of the work. With future updates to the mempool, hopefully we get around that just basically for free, where any channels that have already updated with v3 and ephemeral anchors will benefit from these other background updates as well. Greg Sanders: Yeah, well part of it, right. Greg Sanders: Sure. Yeah, so for the past year or so, I’ve been working on an implementation of what’s called Eltoo, which I picked the name LN-Symmetry. Greg Sanders: Yeah, we’d be able to get rid of that message, the update fee that t-bast was talking about, which would be great. Maybe that’s for you, t-bast. I’m making sure that whatever we’re building would actually be useful by these projects, I think that’s very important. But that’s further in the future, like considerable further in the future. The protocol should even be forward compatible with future segwit versions, such as bip-taproot and bip-tapscript (with some unresolved limitations related<br>time locks).