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 AA052C0012; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988B1833FB; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 dta8pqgaSQ3K; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:12:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A5198239A; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id bf8so8419469oib.6; Thu, 09 Dec 2021 04:12:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V1eIeVqwXOR/eXhrLLuoWlsUgVNaMOoSN+wNPKTr3mQ=; b=ZtPMRJ2iIxHR/RaKgZV7x7d2Qzx5A12Q5TKwF+kOgw6IdvAEWhNq+07VvA+2WPBIKT 1GLdNTfxovA4P6j4Yrb2u8d3SSouU2KUCqfYol4VzBCuZxUr55Wojn5X8QNLuW9H2BTH 8cL6QtXCuoSA2dWAIrD6JyA4M0mQjRy0n1vW2TcfN8/ZMBua1cEsyBHUrJ/nJyakEDzI y/uu8YT+hNj4tMbHodPp+jQPyzzyEbDn80uImZToMEuDfuPbcvFBmZtFiw9euVfglGx3 b7X7p8YnnvDwVSf9JCQuR50TtAUfxmcTLQ7BjR1QtMWiDAJGZvFONsQoYNKhj+s+nZmb lwaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V1eIeVqwXOR/eXhrLLuoWlsUgVNaMOoSN+wNPKTr3mQ=; b=fS+r7HrfLeGYgwk3vHGn4EZhu4xRO6S2UzqS2fGTHzC3q7VotXwNA5tk+xPEmOfAd3 kvijMHrAQPvHJYBQHTJahcm4PHsw6OahBZTlsf2LoO27N/X3kBb2EINBxo5cMNRNjMZO k08T+CP39VKsssMVAJAYySJEkmLpEFs7i6KKnfNd3mDN+b2V+XRs4WWp0ft3nw3Cws8S Im/8wTZ0ezukl9MlHk0jRAbIQhDpAX7ak5VRtk8Wbk1ShXPBIc5V+Pd89Aj+9kNsJUq7 qsxoOC+Hx8ybEuKq+L5BZTyY/4AOSYwvLyvjre7O3Dr+LzU6cMB95Yvs67tzy4iN+U54 ZMsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZJCAHI6udtsLJxsfEohDwhFA56fu6wiDzXlDymAcjuglI68pO owHJnaBfRjclglKN+hy0+OevaDNa64TW0IaWysw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvx8OhVb6tQjVqoLd+JFctl2Msu978xAx8qdx9FTNT3E4qGAzmGU4O8wW/Qcol0JsHaZ5YFSiAvscT/4h3icE= X-Received: by 2002:a54:4707:: with SMTP id k7mr5034861oik.163.1639051976470; Thu, 09 Dec 2021 04:12:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alex Schoof Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 07:12:45 -0500 Message-ID: To: pete@petertodd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3761d05d2b58659" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:35:49 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , lightning-dev , =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=A9ctor_Jos=C3=A9_C=C3=A1rdenas_Pacheco?= Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via Bitcoin Lightning 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: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:12:58 -0000 --000000000000d3761d05d2b58659 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The multisig scheme is interesting. From my understanding of Single Use Seals, since seal n commits to seal n+1, for the on-chain aggregation seals you would want to pick some common aggregation service provider ahead of time and if that provider disappears, you=E2=80=99re stuck and cant close t= he next seal. If instead you say =E2=80=9Cthis seal commits to three of the five of= these next seals=E2=80=9D then you mitigate both availability and censorship risk= . Am I getting that right? Alex On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:23 AM Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:49:11AM +0000, Christian Moss wrote: > > pete@petertodd.org, so single use seals require an onchain transaction > to > > post the proof of publication to the ledger (assuming bitcoin is used a= s > > the ledger) when an asset is transferred, but it can scale because you > can > > batch many proofs (transfer of ownerships) into a merkle tree and just > add > > the merkle root into the single tx going into the ledger? > > Exactly. And since the aggregation is trustless with respect to validity, > users > can choose what kind of censorship risk they're willing to take (as well = as > mitigate it with "multisig" schemes that use multiple aggregators in > parallel). > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > --=20 Alex Schoof --000000000000d3761d05d2b58659 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The multisig scheme is interesting. From my understanding= of Single Use Seals, since seal n commits to seal n+1, for the on-chain ag= gregation seals you would want to pick some common aggregation service prov= ider ahead of time and if that provider disappears, you=E2=80=99re stuck an= d cant close the next seal. If instead you say =E2=80=9Cthis seal commits t= o three of the five of these next seals=E2=80=9D then you mitigate both ava= ilability and censorship risk. Am I getting that right?=C2=A0

Alex

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:23 = AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org<= /a>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:49:11AM= +0000, Christian Moss wrote:
> pete@petertodd= .org, so single use seals require an onchain transaction to
> post the proof of publication to the ledger (assuming bitcoin is used = as
> the ledger) when an asset is transferred, but it can scale because you= can
> batch many proofs (transfer of ownerships) into a merkle tree and just= add
> the merkle root into the single tx going into the ledger?

Exactly. And since the aggregation is trustless with respect to validity, u= sers
can choose what kind of censorship risk they're willing to take (as wel= l as
mitigate it with "multisig" schemes that use multiple aggregators= in parallel).

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/lightning-dev
--


Alex Schoof
--000000000000d3761d05d2b58659--