The sender of the message introduces the idea that fees should be levied from the party opting to sign and broadcast a transaction, drawing a parallel with Child Pays For Parent (CPFP) anchors. However, they note a difference, stating that while CPFP anchors allow both parties the choice to contribute to transaction fees, typically only one side does so in actual Lightning Network operations.

Contrary to the recipient's belief, the email states that the existence of multiple fee variants within the protocol does not lead to withholding issues. It clarifies that a Lightning channel's state progression is contingent on meeting all protocol requirements for fee variants. Therefore, incomplete submissions cannot advance the state any more than an incomplete commitment transaction can.

Additionally, the author refers to their own blog post which discusses Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs), recommending a full read to understand the potential solutions to handle HTLC fee rates and avoid scalability issues. The author provides links to the blog post for further reading: V3 transactions, HTLCs, and Replace-By-Fee. They also include their contact information with a quirky Python slice notation indicating a correction to their email address: 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org.