From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D346C000B for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D18540201 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:11:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcY8lMyTsQAg for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:11:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.137]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20DBB401F8 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:11:12 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1646597474; bh=GT69MhMpPFYQcF9A4Hi8k1/Iq0mI0NzRwcLmjl7lzqU=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=JpD0ZzHZjixWaQK6YTlzSI5JypU5dAspZdUYG1agY7gkytg+NKI61SUoyeBFavphb A14p6xPm+wNl833zE0mld2OjUVypE9pRaFnV/FtwYkujqHGFat363+RXb8M3phDSnX 2rGnvXufzuzulDZ0HG9zPUyJ7GfpUGPwkoCCpTlfaG1saLHdI4IwWS2BR75d0xzayS moL5w5ck0aJman7zpoqsE+zaeYHGKbN8wrOyDFCyYlGwX+guTBBSK3BfU6vk2YDVqN RM1wCuYsh1CzIIXca+XGw81zSFPdAD3doRw2QWT3/YGazdrprdiHUy4zF3XJnmjU8+ XAG3HTUPbEOOw== To: Chris Stewart From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <9yZl_Q0jy6DTD0BLoU-AaGZzHGO53238vIS8t54lGqFa0Rkk6-omZrTvwP3Rq4Yl3mp0krPPANseVFHebvLFw2-wj1FwPJxFSQPYrX6ujv0=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1ICs_kG6Eloiy6E4yLUkdFUI4EqKtaRPqcIY5kOM8Pq1xdWQHAMsMUxFsQ0xw2RcdMoMfxJSmlhb_ilXaw_nESliKxlE_Xp5tchQxXKD58E=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , "dlc-dev@mailmanlists.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recurring bitcoin/LN payments using DLCs 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: Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:11:18 -0000 Good morning Chris, > >On the other hand, the above, where the oracle determines *when* the fun= d can be spent, can also be implemented by a simple 2-of-3, and called an "= escrow". > > I think something that is underappreciated by protocol developers is the = fact that multisig requires interactiveness at settlement time. The multisi= g escrow provider needs to know the exact details about the bitcoin transac= tion and needs to issue a signature (gotta sign the outpoints, the fee, the= payout addresses etc). > > With PTLCs that isn't the case, and thus gives a UX improvement for Alice= & Bob that are using the escrow provider. The oracle (or escrow) just issu= es attestations. Bob or Alice take those attestations and complete the adap= tor signature. Instead of a bi-directional communication requirement (the o= racle working with Bob or Alice to build the bitcoin tx) at settlement time= there is only unidirectional communication required. Non-interactive settl= ement is one of the big selling points of DLC style applications IMO. > > One of the unfortunate things about LN is the interactiveness requirement= s are very high, which makes developing applications hard (especially mobil= e applications). I don't think this solves lightning's problems, but it is = a worthy goal to reduce interactiveness requirements with new bitcoin appli= cations to give better UX. Good point. I should note that 2-of-3 contracts are *not* transportable over LN, but PT= LCs *are* transportable. So the idea still has merit for LN, as a replacement for 2-fo-3 escrows. Regards, ZmnSCPxj