From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8088EC002A for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A61E83B06 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 5A61E83B06 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=Klxu/6GC X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U7Og3FNPuWpy for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 02AEF83B01 Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02AEF83B01 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:00 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1684760602; x=1685019802; bh=N8fOFv7dGWzbXtssFa+rnswGsgcnvyyoXtQ8Rwzs5m0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=Klxu/6GC7+CvVPzo3hphyF6xMvCJie0Xq6ODBGz05ciXMbHXEBL3ywo5j4XEPRcN/ Ao62J0qU0FdzprLKbFzmyq3HIi83Mq6N6zKSDeXZ22VBy9S6o4qnlh5Qe4BNybxEuT PgFETPRlhELtpD6VOLhWEYGnT6hAdy8wS2SgPZWwHCcfxe2ZP9Jn5ClnJnL2g8mH+a WEddSQtrUNkmEdEIzrdUjRf/SH8nS02651pbqcC5W42Ei8SQzwpO1Gc2Syr39Gede7 2UGIHcttbrbgY9HW2M1sPrmz23HheqbGmGCvESq3J+rXt7lr0EARiz5avxKcvlnnRc rWFPoYrKC/YaQ== To: Burak Keceli , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <94d_XdPjU7_erTbusSTbsSWNNL3Wgx61scF_EknkwXp_ywmCLJ5jc13RVlTF_gpdZG5scUU_4z27qPykXQjLESE1m06CEJbsCha13QdqeFY=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1300890009.1516890.1684742043892@eu1.myprofessionalmail.com> References: <1300890009.1516890.1684742043892@eu1.myprofessionalmail.com> Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second Layer Solution X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 13:03:26 -0000 Good morning Burak, I have not gone through the deep dive fully yet, but I find myself confused= about this particular claim: > A pool transaction can be double-spent by the Ark service provider while = it remains in the mempool. However, in the meantime, the recipient can pay = a lightning invoice with their incoming zero-conf vTXOs, so it=E2=80=99s a = footgun for the service operator to double-spend in this case.=C2=A0 Given that you make this claim: > ASPs on Ark are both (1) liquidity providers, (2) blinded coinjoin coordi= nators, and (3) Lightning service providers. ASPs main job is to create rap= id, blinded coinjoin sessions every five seconds, also known as pools. As the access to Lightning is also by the (same?) ASP, it seems to me that = the ASP will simply fail to forward the payment on the broader Lightning ne= twork after it has replaced the in-mempool transaction, preventing recipien= ts from actually being able to rely on any received funds existing until th= e next pool transaction is confirmed. Even if the Lightning access is somehow different from the ASP you are rece= iving funds on, one ASP cannot prove that another ASP is not its sockpuppet= except via some expensive process (i.e. locking funds or doing proof-of-wo= rk). Regards, ZmnSCPxj