Cognitively, the motivation was to allow expenditures of “local” or “remote” commitment anchors without introducing additional pin vectors. It had many disadvantages, including lack of effectiveness under hostile conditions, and still took considerable Vbytes even in benign scenarios.
I don’t think it’s much better than the BIP431 Motivation section of the TRUC transaction in regards to various pinning vectors and their historical significance: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0431.mediawiki#motivation
In short, there are many pinning vectors that exist when the Lightning network was first deployed. “Full RBF” was not adopted by the entire network at the time. There were also RBF fee pinning, package limit pinning, lack of package relays, lack of package RBF, etc., which have made the exchange too expensive (and incentives not compatible) or completely impossible, taking into account certain conditions.
Since Bitcoin Core 28.0, most of this environment has been changed: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/28.0/
A planned update to the “Zero Fee Commitment” channel (https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/1228) significantly reduces or eliminates these issues, bringing greater complexity and smaller transactions of vbytes. There is a single anchor output that is probably zero value (or trimmed HTLC amount), allowing counterparties to spend at their own pace without signature.
Discover more from Earlybirds Invest
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
