pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hynek OP 9 Jan \ parent \ on: Save on-chain fees by merging transactions builders
You are paying for data stored. Which is basically inputs, outputs, and headers.
Please have a look on the schema above.
Output B (of original TX) is the same as input B (of CPFP TX). When you remove them you save on fees. Both are redundant.
And you don't need even the second TX header since it will be one transaction now.
Fee rate has to be increased a bit to motivate nodes to broadcast the new transaction. But total fee can be still lower. See the schema where I'm removing B output, B input, and one header. Or the example from app print-screen is real case where I save 16% even with increased fee rate.
The bigger fees the bigger saving...
Thanks,
Payjoin is cool. Here is the difference, that users don't need to actively communicate, but mempool is used as a "marketplace" or communication platform → which is not optimal but sometimes might be handy.
And just like Payjoin this is creating aliby for chain analysis...
Why would the recipient use this? What's the advantage?
Recipients transaction will be boosted because fee rate increases.
the part B would have to be the same amount for both parties
There's no need to use same amounts. Or how do you mean it?
Trezor is transparent with these discoveries:
https://trezor.io/learn/a/past-security-issues
I didn't want to go into technical details yet.. but imagine that the
defense transaction looks similar to commitment transaction in lightning.In our example there will be two outputs:
- 8 BTC for Alice - spendable without restrictions
- 0.5 BTC for Bob
- Alice can spend immediately if she has some secret from Bob (this way can Bob invalidate this transaction)
- Bob can spend after
CSV_delay
Alice can create another transaction where Bob has nothing.. She will loose slightly more, but Bob will be punished.
I don't know what would be the best use case.. I had in my mind option to offer cheap self-custody to newcomers.
Difference in price could be caused by transaction costs.
Imagine being able to transfer for free via Wallet of Satoshi or costly permissionless…
I would probably cash out small portion of the stack. If it isn’t feasible then rather keep everything in real bitcoin.
Lightning doesn’t scale in terms of user count. It’s necessary for regular payments, but as of now there can’t be more than 20mil self-custody users.
(Assuming 1 transaction per month)
I'm trying to research this as well. These concepts are hard to understand.. but here is my current list:
- Ark
- RGB - Prime
- Utreexo
- Mercury
- Citrea
- Pathcoin
- State channels, Rollups, Drive-chains, other side chains (ie Rootstock or LayerTwo labs)
That X shit doesn't allow me to message you..
let's meet in the civilized world:
npub1lz8xv2dnyryrk4vswkcgf52vqqzruqwuyp53s7pvusx4fef9fh2s7hh86s