From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74997EC0; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.136]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC38584F; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:22:59 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1552540985; bh=/y2gRQqBzHFrDT3+XDyGzBz+rT5OqIGNydilaPclOOw=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=Eb0SOTffmNoUCKrtbUWfh9s6HZ2fvoWLLlnU3TIfWChjb2eJ2fQe6aj5iy4HV22Kc pXJaBQnR/80z97ZjGOExUTC7Q+L3VBWZDmaHeChdxuwqL+B35WTs2Dgt9KCoObqMYi 5HRg/ER5KYlfo8ak5foelY4W2p3SK3lTHSJuHaLY= To: Anthony Towns From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au> References: <20190313014143.ifffshwdux2jt7w5@erisian.com.au> <20190313111050.qj3s6utpl2x34sam@erisian.com.au> Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:29:32 +0000 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] More thoughts on NOINPUT safety X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:23:08 -0000 Good morning aj, When reading through your original post I saw you mentioned something about= output tagging somehow conflicting with Taproot, so I assumed Taproot is n= ot useable in this case. However, it is probably more likely that I simply misunderstood what you sa= id, so if you can definitively say that it would be possible to hide the cl= ause "or a NOINPUT sig from A with a non-NOINPUT sig from B" behind a Tapro= ot then I am fine. Minor pointless reactions: > 5. if you're using scriptless scripts to do HTLCs, you'll need to > allow for NOINPUT sigs when claiming funds as well (and update > the partial signatures for the non-NOINPUT cases if you want to > maximise privacy), which is a bit fiddly If I remember accurately, we do not allow bilateral/cooperative close when = HTLC is in-flight. However, I notice that later you point out that a non-cheating unilateral c= lose does not need NOINPUT, so I suppose. the above thought applies to that= case. Regards, ZmnSCPxj