Posted by t-bast
Jan 17, 2024/13:33 UTC
The email discussion revolves around the technical considerations of identifying users of CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) carve-out transactions and maintaining support for them. The sender originally misunderstood the situation, thinking that it would be impossible to continue supporting CPFP carve-out alongside new cluster mempool code, leading to an assumption that lightning commitment transactions with two anchor outputs should implicitly enroll in v3 policies as a replacement for the CPFP carve-out.
However, the core concern expressed is not strictly about how to identify a Lightning Network (LN) anchor spend but rather how to enable the identification of CPFP carve-out users effectively. The aim is to keep supporting the CPFP carve-out for applications that do not explicitly set nVersion=3. This suggests that there remains a possibility of supporting both mechanisms concurrently or finding a pathway to transition without disrupting current users heavily reliant on the CPFP carve-out feature, particularly those within the Lightning Network. The conversation indicates a need for a careful evaluation of the technical paths available to ensure sustained functionality for affected applications and users.
TLDR
We’ll email you summaries of the latest discussions from authoritative bitcoin sources, like bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev, and Delving Bitcoin.
We'd love to hear your feedback on this project?
Give Feedback