Peter Todd
Peter Todd
> @petertodd I'll give a non-TRUC version another try and report back. I may have been over-thinking things. If it works out it will be very similar in code structure......
I'm also going to point out that restricting ephemeral dust transactions to zero fee seems to create protocol design problems around HTLCs: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ephemeral-anchors-and-mevil/383 The simplest solution with dust HTLCs is...
Stealing an ephemeral anchor output can only be done in certain conditions, at specific ranges of values. It is not always profitable due to overheads, and you can reduce those...
It looks like we've created a new, rare, pinning vector here: in the event that a dust-generating transaction is reorged back into the mempool, transactions that otherwise could have spent...
> @petertodd I believe that's incorrect, and looks like I wrote a test case for this: [63e0970#diff-f3bb3623abbd14a7140e405175278c9187eb8c2cf6ff0279700ac507c5f4180cR334](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/63e097092253b25fa9d72af167d83d911c805c9c#diff-f3bb3623abbd14a7140e405175278c9187eb8c2cf6ff0279700ac507c5f4180cR334) > > I show that a child spend of parent tx gets into...
I should point out that the TRUC code may suffer from this same category of problem around reorgs too...
> Got it. Normally a reorg like this would result in an effective feerate reduction, as the entire package is now having to be paid for. With the dust spending...
To be clear, post-quantum _encryption_ isn't relevant to this use-case. Just signing. Also, we should not use only a post-quantum signing algorithm. If we do use one, it should be...