Archives/lnbook
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook synced 2024-11-01 03:20:53 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #540 from bolatovumar/fix-539

Browse Source 
Update spelling in Ch. 3
This commit is contained in:
Andreas M. Antonopoulos 2020-12-08 09:09:58 -06:00 committed by GitHub
commit 40ea885477
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
03_how_ln_works.asciidoc
View File

@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ After all, that's what commitment transactions are for - they offer a guarantee
Once you broadcast the last commitment transaction to the Bitcoin network and it is confirmed, it will create two spendable outputs, one for you and one for your partner.
As we discussed previously, the Bitcoin network has no way of knowing if this was the most recent commitment transaction or an old one which was published to steal from your partner.
Hence this commitment transaction will give a slight "advantage" to your partner.
The partner who initiated the force close will their output encumbered by a timelock, and the other partner's output will be spendable immediately.
The partner who initiated the force close will have their output encumbered by a timelock, and the other partner's output will be spendable immediately.
In the case that you broadcasted an earlier commitment transaction, the timelock delay gives your partner the opportunity to "dispute" the transaction using the revocation secret and punish you for cheating.
When publishing a commitment transaction during a force close, the on-chain fees will be higher than a mutual close for several reasons:
@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ When publishing a commitment transaction during a force close, the on-chain fees
[NOTE]
====
Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) will be covered in detail in <<htlcs>>.
For now, assume that these are payments that are routed across the Ligntning Network, rather than payments made directly between the two channel partners.
For now, assume that these are payments that are routed across the Lightning Network, rather than payments made directly between the two channel partners.
These HTLCs are carried as additional outputs in the commitment transactions, thereby increasing the transaction size and on-chain fees.
====
@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ The onion routing protocol used in Lightning is called the _SPHINX mixformat_ an
[NOTE]
====
Lightning's onion routing SPHINX mixformat is only similar to the Tor network routing in concept, but both the protocol and the implementation are entirely different from those use in the Tor network.
Lightning's onion routing SPHINX mixformat is only similar to the Tor network routing in concept, but both the protocol and the implementation are entirely different from those used in the Tor network.
====
A payment package used for routing is called an "onion". footnote:[The term "onion" was originally used by the Tor project. Moreover, the Tor network is also called the Onion network and the project uses an onion as its logo. The top level domain name used by Tor services on the internet is ".onion".]