Remove ambiguous note about use of localpubkey in to_remote
#1299
Conversation
As defined in the specification, our `localpubkey` is derived from our `payment_basepoint` and the `per_commitment_point`, which means that it changes for each commitment. Now that we assume `option_static_remote`, we expect our counterparty to always set their `to_remote` to use our static `payment_basepoint` (not `localpubkey`) so that we can recover funds without knowledge of the `per_commitment_point`. This note contradicts that, making it seem like we're still using the variable `localpubkey` in both the local and remote party's commitments, not just the local one.
Use the names that we refer to earlier in the bolt.
Do you really find it ambiguous? I find it nice to highlight this symmetry between the local and remote commitment transactions, as this is one of the things that newcomers have a hard time wrapping their head around. But I may be biased since I've known this stuff for a while, if people find it confusing, happy to remove it! |
Wrote this up in the first commit message, but as I read it |
|
Got it, that is indeed confusing now, it wasn't before |
2 participants
localpubkeybeing used into_remote{local/remote}pubkey