Good morning John,
> On the other hand, if the consensus rules are changed to allow even simple
> covenants, this scaling bottleneck is eliminated.
> The key observation is that with covenants, a casual user can co-own an
> off-chain Lightning channel without having to sign all (or any) of the
>
> replacing CTV usage with Musig2
>
>
this changes the trust model to a federated one vs trustless and also
increases the on-chain footprint of failure, correct?
>
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Hi Antoine,
Thanks for your note. Responses are in-line below:
> Hi John,
> Thanks for the proposal, few feedback after a first look.
> If Bitcoin and Lightning are to become widely-used, they will have to
> be adopted by casual users who want to send and receive bitcoin, but who
> do not
Hi Rusty,
> I've read the start of the paper on my vacation, and am still
> digesting it. But even so far, it presents some delightful
> possibilities.
Great!
> As with some other proposals, it's worth noting that the cost of
> enforcement is dramatically increased. It's no longer one
Hi aj,
I completely agree with your observation that there's an important trust/safety
vs. capital-efficiency tradeoff, and I almost completely agree with your
analysis.
> (There are probably ways around this with additional complexity: eg,
> you could peer with a dedicated node, and have
