Please recommend 29, not 28. 29 enables zero-fee-commitments for lightning, which is a really important feature in some cases!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I have a question, is v30 the final decision by core team?

Final decision on what? They changed defaults, you can change them in bitcoin.conf pretty easily…

Well didn't core change the definition of the feature? So reinstating the previous default parameter doesn't reinstate the previous feature.

No. Changing the config to the previous default basically has the same outcome as the previous code.

Pls explain what "basically" means. Genuinely interested. Thanks.

The only difference is the data can be split over a few more outputs (AFAIU), but the total data is limited to whatever you set.

Then what's the point for the changes?

Why core team still want changes without consensus?

Consensus on policy isn’t a thing? Anyone can change the config to anything they want, by definition there is no consensus.

Enjoy your irrelevancy, pathetic stooge shill

Not sure most people are aware of the benefits (I'm not).

My understanding is that the commitment transaction is basically the transactions you are "passing around" with the other side of a lightning channel, your updates to the "bar tab". There is an issue that if these are too old, when you try to force close a channel, it fails because the fee to the miner is too low, so we need a mechanism for either side to bump the fee.

If this is correct, can you complete it with why is it important to support zero fee commitments and what exactly do they solve? (Or share a link 🙂)