Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 04:18:37AM +, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote: > > A+P + max(0, B'-B)*0.1 to Alice > > B-f - max(0, B'-B)*0.1 to Bob > So, if what you propose is widespread, then a theft attempt is costless: That's what the "max" part prevents -- if your current balance is B and

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

Good morning aj, > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 05:05:05PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > > > ### Scorched earth punishment > > > > Another thing that I'd like to mention is that using revocable signatures > > enables scorched earth punishments [2]. > > I kind-of think it'd be more interesting to

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 05:05:05PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > ### Scorched earth punishment > Another thing that I'd like to mention is that using revocable signatures > enables scorched earth punishments [2]. I kind-of think it'd be more interesting to simulate eltoo's behaviour. If Alice's

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:23:19PM +1100, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 17:30, Anthony Towns wrote: > I don't think the layering here quite works: if Alice forwarded a payment > to Bob, with timeout T, then the only way she can be sure that she can > either reclaim

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

I can confirm I moved a repository few months ago and all links kept working fine. On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 20:58 Matt Corallo wrote: > > > On 10/11/21 05:29, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses > > > wrote: > > > > Completely

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 9:23 pm, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > > Adjust the protocol so that you reciprocate the in-flight txs. So when I > offer you a HTLC you first forward it and then lazily send me the signature > for the inflight tx. Therefore I dont have to wait to get the HTLC on chain > and

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

On 10/11/21 05:29, Bryan Bishop wrote: On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses mailto:kno...@gmail.com>> wrote: Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote? What would be the reasoning for not moving it? One consideration is broken links,

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote: > Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote? What > would be the reasoning for not moving it? > One consideration is broken links, which can be solved by a soft note in a README somewhere. - Bryan

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 17:30, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I don't think the layering here quite works: if Alice forwarded a payment > to Bob, with timeout T, then the only way she can be sure that she can > either reclaim the funds or know the preimage by time T is to close the > channel on-chain

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 11:12:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 2. The balance transaction - tracks the funding transaction, contains > a "balance" output for each of the participants. > 3. The inflight transactions - spends a balance output from the balance > transaction and provides

Re: [Lightning-dev] Lightning over taproot with PTLCs

Hey aj, This is awesome work. My line of research on "witness asymmetric channels" essentially ended up in a dead end because I couldn't see how they were much better than naive PTLC lightning. The idea I really liked from it was "revocable signatures". I hoped someone would eventually figure out