Hi,
This post recalls the noticeable interactivity issue encumbering payment
pools and channel factories in the context of a high number of
participants, describes how the problem can be understood and proposes few
solutions with diverse trust-minizations and efficiency assumptions. It is
intended
Hi Antoine,
Very interesting exploration. I think you're right that there are issues
with the kind of partitioning you're talking about. Lightning works because
all participants sign all offchain states (barring data loss). If a
participant can be excluded from needing to agree to a new state, the
Hi Billy,
Thanks for reading.
> A. Create sub-pools when the whole group is live that can be used by the
> sub- pool participants later without the whole group's involvement. The
> whole group is needed to change the whole group's state (eg close or open
> sub-pools), but sub-pool states don't ne
Good morning Billy,
> Very interesting exploration. I think you're right that there are issues with
> the kind of partitioning you're talking about. Lightning works because all
> participants sign all offchain states (barring data loss). If a participant
> can be excluded from needing to agree
@Antoine
> it's also hard to predict in advance the liquidity needs of the
sub-pools.
Definitely. Better than not being able to use the pool at all when
someone's offline tho.
> this fan-out transaction could interfere with the confirmation of the
simple withdraw transactions
> So there is an op
Hi Antoine,
Thanks for your insightful post on the interactivity issue.
Some thoughts are inline below.
> However, those constructions require all the users to be online and
> exchange rounds of signatures to update the balance distribution. Those
> liveliness/interactivity requirements are incr
Hi John,
Thanks for the read!
> Agreed that signing updates and monitoring the blockchain both create
always-online requirements that are not compatible with casual users'
desires. I think
> it's helpful to separate these two cases, as they affect different
parties and their solutions differ.
> I
