Carsten Otto <carsten.o...@andrena.de> writes:
> the paper is a bit confusing regarding the setup transaction, as it is
> not described formally. There also seems to be a mixup of "setup
> transaction" and "funding transaction", also named T_{u,0} without
> showing it in the diagrams.The setup transaction is simply a transaction that spends some funds and creates a single output, which has the script from Figure 2, but since that would be a forward reference, I decided to handwave and call it a multisig. A simple fix would be to change the setup phase bullet point at the beginning of section 3, would that be sufficient? > In 3.1 the funding transaction is described as funding "to a multisig > address". In the description of trigger transactions the change is > described as "The output from the setup transaction is changed into a > simple 2-of-2 multisig output" - which it already is? If instead of calling it a multisig we call it a multiparty output and reference the script in Figure 2, that'd be addressed as well. > As far as I understand the situation, the trigger transaction is needed > because the broadcasted initial/funding/setup transaction includes an > OP_CLV, which then starts the timer and could lead to premature > settlement. Removing OP_CLV (and having in a transaction that is only > published later when it is needed), i.e. by changing it to a simple > multisig output, seems to solve this issue. > > Could you (Christian?) explain how the "setup transaction" is supposed > to look like without the changes described in section 4.2? Well, it has arbitrary inputs, and a single output with the script from Figure 2, in the non-trigger case, and in the trigger case it'd be just a `2 A B 2 OP_CMSV`. _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
