JSwambo

When I test locally I don't get the same failure with `test_spend.py::test_large_spends`. Not sure why this is failing

Nice! I just have one suggestion to update `introduction.md` too. Can you add this to the end of the file: "Since Cancel TXs may (or may not) occur frequently, it...

A few notes on the difference between dynamic and static fee approaches: - Dynamic fee-bumping (ignoring pinning attacks) has higher operational cost (watchtower wallet management consumes non-negligible amounts of bitcoin)....

> However, while it seems really intricate to keep this satisfied for the `total_balance` as the `current_top_feerate` moves, it is (i think) completely unreasonable to try to keep it for...

> Shoudl the stakeholder have a direct channel with its WT for refilling **through revaultd / the GUI** ? They'd have to maintain their own independent wallet to do this....

> We could, but let's not waste time to only get out with another arbitrary value that's going to be blown up anyways during the next bull run. Agreed! It...

**Problem:** Watchtower re-fills are cumbersome/ impractical. Can minimize them with the following approach. This idea doesn't prevent the fundamental problems of fee-market spike. Consider 'vault' as any combination of deposit...

Is there any chance that the Unvault Tx will batch deposit UTxOs in a future version? If so should we consider committing to the vout too in the Cancel and...

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like there is nothing stopping an attacker from choosing H to be the same when constructing both Cancel Tx 1 and Cancel Tx 2....

>> What verification do we have that the H are unique? > They would not exchange signatures for the same transaction. Right, so we assume at least 1 of the...