Introductions, Mike Schmidt, Contributor at Optech and Executive Director at Brink, where we fund Bitcoin open-source developers. Mike Schmidt: Yeah, I think it’s probably good to jump into the second news item, then we can continue some of this discussion. But luckily I saw that it was being heavily commented or reviewed by t-Bast who was going to be joining us already for the LN Summit discussion. Also briefly mentioned was the discussion started by ZmnSCPxj on the Lightning-Dev mailing list about how precisely taproot could be integrated with LN to provide improved privacy and scalability. ● BIP proposed for

wallets to set nSequence by default on taproot transactions: Chris Belcher posted a draft BIP to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list suggesting an alternative way wallets can implement anti fee sniping. Are there other downsides, other than that additional minor communication that’s done, that there would be a reason to hesitate on implementing the newer protocol, other than just getting everybody to implement and roll it out? That’s your choice to make, but there may be better ways to earn a bit of side income, without putting your privacy and personal data at risk. Yeah, I don’t understand why the balance is not - well, I guess in the initial balance all of the balance is on the side of the opener and that’s why they have to pay the fees.

So it’s kind of how I got into this, I guess. I understand why that would be the case for the initial open commitment, because when the opener opens a channel and the - well, I guess the other party does accept it anyway. I also wanted to sort of introduce why we invited instagibbs to come talk about some of this. So why wouldn’t it transition to it being 50/50 split or something? And already, with only one side of a channel being able to send that message, it creates a lot of issues, because updating the fee of a commitment transaction while you have a lot of HTLCs in flight can actually make you deep into your reserve. Maybe you want to take the lead and explain exactly what’s being discussed. But then, if they’re not the one who initiated the closing, maybe they didn’t really want to close so they don’t have an incentive to - the incentives are a bit weird regarding how to set the fees.

So now, it’s going to be a very simple version of RBF, where the incentive should be properly aligned because only one party is paying the fees and they are the one proposing that RBF. So in the end, you have two transactions that are negotiated with just one request and response, one where the initiator is paying the fee, one where the non-initiator is paying the fee, and each of them chose the fee they are ready to pay. And this way, we’ll be able to completely deprecate the older two versions at some point. He first describes the savings available to users of threshold keys, aggregated public keys that only require a subset of the original parties in order to create a valid signature, such as an aggregated key created from three individual keys that can be signed for by any two of the participants for 2-of-3 multisig security. It charges based on a tiered system, from regular users to VIP 9. For regular users, a 0.10% maker taker fee is charged for spot trading. So, especially when you’re starting out, you could think of trading and investing as a side venture. And honestly, the communication is really not an issue here, because you are actually closing that channel, you’ve already decided that you want it to close it, so you’re not relaying any Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLCs) on it.

So, if I’m the initiator and I want to close the channel, I’m going to say, "I’m closing that channel with that fee that is taken from my output. So at some point, we added a small tweak to that to make it one round and a half of exchange, where the party who wants to close the channel sends a Type-Length-Value (TLV) saying, "I will accept any fee inside that range, and I am proposing that one". And then the other party can either just reject that entirely by disconnecting, or can either also accept the fee that was proposed, or propose another fee inside the range that was proposed. This automation for the large range of scripts supported by miniscript allows wallets to be much more dynamic about the scripts they use, possibly even allowing users to specify their own scripts. Because of its status as the most popular digital currency in the world, the Bitcoin community has become a standard in its own right, much like the heralded stock exchanges of Wall Street, London and Japan. If you’d like to read more about them, check out Moving Averages Explained. Check out An Introduction to the Elliott Wave Theory for more information on the topic.