Sorry for the long wait for feedback. The transactions are very similar to what we have implemented in https://github.com/comit-network/maia/. The hard part to make it interoperable will be the different message types/styles.
Thanks for the review @bonomat. I'm open for changes, though I'd like to keep things consistent with the on-chain specs where it make sense as multiple implementations already support it.
Just a side note, lately I have been considering if it would be better to share the next_per_update_point as part of the previous update. IIUC that's what LN is doing and I think it would save a message per update (since if a party already has the point they can already build and sign transactions).
Thanks for the review @bonomat. I'm open for changes, though I'd like to keep things consistent with the on-chain specs where it make sense as multiple implementations already support it.
Just a side note, lately I have been considering if it would be better to share the
next_per_update_pointas part of the previous update. IIUC that's what LN is doing and I think it would save a message per update (since if a party already has the point they can already build and sign transactions).