<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] wrote</title><author_name>Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] (npub1zw…hkhpx)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpx</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2021-01-12&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;Lloyd Fournier &lt;lloyd.fourn at gmail.com&gt; writes:&#xA;&gt; Rusty, Zman,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A concern I have with only doing one signaling transaction out of the whole&#xA;&gt; group of inputs is that it means you don&#39;t prove ownership of the other&#xA;&gt; inputs.&#xA;&#xA;But that&#39;s by design.  You can contact two peers and middleman between&#xA;them to produce a single tx.&#xA;&#xA;The practical problem with a signalling tx is that it&#39;s hard to tell if&#xA;it&#39;s conflicting.  Mallory uses a single UTXO to probe for everyone&#39;s&#xA;UTXO at once.  Poor Bob wants to both wait 60 seconds to see if a&#xA;conflicting tx ends up in his mempool, *and* broadcast it ASAP to signal&#xA;to others.  He wants to do both of these *before* revealing his own&#xA;UTXOs.&#xA;&#xA;Not sure how to square this, but I do prefer this approach over PoDLE.&#xA;&#xA;Cheers,&#xA;Rusty.</html></oembed>