I have a couple test transactions at 1.58 sats/vb stuck for 4 hours now, lol. Not that it matters, just, I'm confused what's happening.

Thanks.

Isn't it worth mentioning that by default, makers randomize fees in reannouncements?

Or am I misremembering something. Not unlikely.

I agree this is not some straightforward privacy upgrade, as some want to paint it. But disagree that it's a privacy downgrade; it's more nuanced than that.

Yeah needs a fork. I haven't read it yet 😄

Hmm how it work; presumably different checksig opcode with the typical noop opcode for soft fork. You couldn't just use a sighash flag because it's not *only* changing the message signed; it's a different verification algo.

That's the answer I wanted to make to @Vitor Pamplona more than @Matt Corallo tbh, but, either way 😄

Clearly that's the pure perspective, but I'll keep harping on this point: a model like Phoenix where you don't have privacy from Phoenix is absolutely different from a model like onchain payments. It fits closer to, and is better than, what people are (unconsciously) used to: when they use a bank card they know the bank knows all their transactions, and they accept that tradeoff (mostly because they have no choice to be fair!). I'm not saying a CPOF isn't a problem; such things will always come back to bite you eventually, if they get big enough. But that tradeoff is not even close to being a bad tradeoff with the current status quo, and it is emphatically a better privacy model than the vast majority of others (and I suppose it can still get better). So: self custody, privacy w.r.t. merchant[1] but not service provider, strictly better than bank money: no self custody, privacy w.r.t merchant but not service provider.

[1] just means they don't see your financial history

Its sender side privacy is not bad at all, speaking generally.