MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <dkAxjJIFndwa9WN8Hgrp92I3l3IH0SGRhheMntDfaaDjGTOOnv0s8zIivWE0yiHhh9ty0TQ_IUvkg9Zrs2KFjdSoH1_DrvCymhxA9hF-6Ko=@protonmail.com>
 <8656E5B3-EDC7-4C00-93AB-C61AC6C22563@voskuil.org>
 <786297315b27fdecc1a21cc40ef4b993@dtrt.org>
In-Reply-To: <786297315b27fdecc1a21cc40ef4b993@dtrt.org>
From: Nagaev Boris <bnagaev@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:01 -0300
Message-ID: <CAFC_Vt6yk2MwkUhiBKyGmOArVrU9VCdf27qR8wDMMOz_ONjt=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Lightning Safely With Feerate-Dependent
	Timelocks
Precedence: list

Hey David!

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 9:37=E2=80=AFPM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> We can't prevent people from paying out of band, but we can ensure that
> the easiest and most effective way to pay for a transaction is through
> in-band fees and transactions that are relayed to every miner who is
> interested in them.  If we fail at that, I think Bitcoin losing its
> censorship resistance will be inevitable.  LN, coinpools, and channel
> factories all strongly depend on Bitcoin transactions not being
> censored, so I don't think any security is lost by redesigning them to
> additionally depend on reasonably accurate in-band fee statistics.

Feerate-Dependent Timelocks do create incentives to accept out-of-band
fees to decrease in-band fees and speed up mining of transactions
using FDT! Miners can make a 5% discount on fees paid out-of-band and
many people will use it. Observed fees decrease and FDT transactions
mature faster. It is beneficial for both parties involved: senders of
transactions save 5% on fees, miners get FDT transactions mined faster
and get more profits (for the sake of example more than 5%).

--=20
Best regards,
Boris Nagaev