rich1.0ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] (npub1g5…3ms3l)https://yabu.me/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lnjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-12-07 📝 Original message: Good morning LL, and t-bast, > > Basically, if my memory and understanding are accurate, in the above, it is the *PTLC-offerrer* which provides an adaptor signature. > > That adaptor signature would be included in the `update_add_ptlc` message. > > 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. Agreed. This is also avoided by fast-forwards, BTW, simply because fast-forwards delay the change of the commitment tx. It is another reason to consider fast-forwards, too.... Regards, ZmnSCPxj