You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
10101 creates inbound channels with its users. The fees for force-closing the ln-channel is always paid by the initiator, but for the dlc channel its always 50/50 with the offering party paying the extra sat if the fees are not mod 2.
We need a way of configuring that 50/50 split to allow for a similar approach like a vanilla lightning channel. Ideally only the initiator pays for any fees related to onchain-transactions for force-closing a channel. Thus to de-incentivise force closures.
Additionally we might want to consider always letting the user pay for on-chain transaction fees when force-closing a dlc channel as the user should come online again to either collab close or "rollover" the position.
@Tibo-lg mentioned that this might be a good opportunity to incorporate recent changes from rust-bitcoin in terms of fee calculation.
10101 creates inbound channels with its users. The fees for force-closing the ln-channel is always paid by the initiator, but for the dlc channel its always 50/50 with the offering party paying the extra sat if the fees are not mod 2.
We need a way of configuring that 50/50 split to allow for a similar approach like a vanilla lightning channel. Ideally only the initiator pays for any fees related to onchain-transactions for force-closing a channel. Thus to de-incentivise force closures.
Additionally we might want to consider always letting the user pay for on-chain transaction fees when force-closing a dlc channel as the user should come online again to either collab close or "rollover" the position.
@Tibo-lg mentioned that this might be a good opportunity to incorporate recent changes from
rust-bitcoin
in terms of fee calculation.// edit: @holzeis added additional description
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: