Antoine Poinsot

> Ok, The change output is going back to warm wallet. That is a very good point for usability Yeah, in this model what is delegated stays delegated. The delegation...

Thanks everyone for the feedback! @edouardparis > Maybe this idea can be part of the revault setup [...] Stakeholders have then two delegation choices I'm not sure. The entire point...

Some update re identifying who has broadcast an emergency: we could use the locktimes to give ids to each participant, but it's incompatible with the "Massive Broadcast On Emergency" :tm:...

For the cancel transaction it's not a threat, and debugging can be achieved by other means than modifying the "Smart Contracts :tm:"

We assume nobody is trolling though, as they could always refuse to sign :)

> In both approaches, it's possible that the highest possible Cancel fee-rate is insufficient. In this rare circumstance, with dynamic fee-bumping a WT can be refilled by any participant, with...

It was discussed during the meeting, and i think `[10, 100, 200, 400, 800]` sounds good.

- UTXO-split before signing (is it desirable?) - ~~Spend transaction fee bumping~~ Done in v0 - The dreaded on-the-fly policy update (brought up by @JSwambo)

~~It'd be great to eventually split the "policy advertizer" and "policy enforcer" roles of the WT, which are currently fulfilled by a single entity (the actual WT).~~ ~~This would allow...

Some new Revault 2.0 :tm: stuff from the November retreat: - Deployment without cosigning servers (https://github.com/re-vault/practical-revault/issues/42) => EDIT: now i think it was made possible with the removal of the...