{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] (npub1g5…3ms3l)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-12-07\n📝 Original message:\nGood morning LL, and t-bast,\n\n\u003e \u003e Basically, if my memory and understanding are accurate, in the above, it is the *PTLC-offerrer* which provides an adaptor signature.\n\u003e \u003e That adaptor signature would be included in the `update_add_ptlc` message.\n\u003e\n\u003e Isn't it the case that all previous PTLC adaptor signatures need to be re-sent for each update_add_ptlc message because the signatures would no longer be valid once the commit tx changes. I think it's better to put it in `commitment_signed` if possible. This is what is done with pre-signed HTLC signatures at the moment anyway.\n\nAgreed.\n\nThis is also avoided by fast-forwards, BTW, simply because fast-forwards delay the change of the commitment tx.\nIt is another reason to consider fast-forwards, too....\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj"}